chedi mchomba chikira vs attorney general 2006 tzhc 298 20 march 2006

chedi mchomba chikira vs attorney general 2006 tzhc 298 20 march 2006

The court held that the impugned provisions do not violate the Constitution as they do not absolutely bar access to court but require compliance with procedural requirements for waiver of immunity. The limitations are reasonable, justified by international obligations, and consistent with the Constitution. The petition lacks merit.

Citation
chedi mchomba chikira vs attorney general 2006 tzhc 298 20 march 2006
Parties
Petitioner: Chedi Mchomba Chikira; Respondent: The Attorney General
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
20 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment
Outcome
petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Diplomatic Immunity, Access to Justice, Human Rights, Constitutional Interpretation
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law International Law Diplomatic Immunity Access to Justice Human Rights Constitutional Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chedi Mchomba Chikira

Petitioner

The Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 13(1) Fourth Schedule of Act No. 5 of 1986, GN No. 85 of 1988, and paragraph 3, 4, and 5 of Article XVIII of the schedule to section 7 of Act No. 3 of 1987 are unconstitutional for violating Articles 13(1)(2)(3) and 6(a) of the Constitution of Tanzania by barring access to court against ESAMI.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the impugned provisions do not violate the Constitution as they do not absolutely bar access to court but require compliance with procedural requirements for waiver of immunity. The limitations are reasonable, justified by international obligations, and consistent with the Constitution. The petition lacks merit.

Court Disposition

petition dismissed

Orders

  • Petition dismissed with costs.