20010628 TZHC Dar es Salaam

20010628 TZHC Dar es Salaam

Section 111(2) and (3) of the Elections Act, 1985, by imposing an excessive and mandatory security for costs, restrict access to justice and are discriminatory, violating constitutional guarantees of equality and fair hearing. The statutory requirement cannot be mitigated by subsidiary legislation. The provisions are arbitrary and not reasonably necessary for their stated objective.

Citation
20010628 TZHC Dar es Salaam
Parties
Petitioner: Julius Ishengoma Francis Ndyanabo; Respondent: The Attorney General
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
28 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Dissenting Ruling at High Court
Outcome
Petition allowed (minority/dissenting view); declaration of unconstitutionality withheld; Parliament given nine months to address the issues.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Access to Justice, Discrimination, Fair Hearing, Subsidiary Legislation Vs Statute
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Election Law Civil Procedure Security for Costs Access to Justice Discrimination Fair Hearing Subsidiary Legislation Vs Statute

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julius Ishengoma Francis Ndyanabo

Petitioner

The Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Dissenting Ruling at High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 111(2), (3), and (6) of the Elections Act, 1985 are unconstitutional for requiring excessive security for costs before hearing election petitions
  2. 2 Whether the requirement discriminates between natural persons and the Attorney General
  3. 3 Whether the provisions restrict access to justice and fair hearing

Ratio Decidendi

Section 111(2) and (3) of the Elections Act, 1985, by imposing an excessive and mandatory security for costs, restrict access to justice and are discriminatory, violating constitutional guarantees of equality and fair hearing. The statutory requirement cannot be mitigated by subsidiary legislation. The provisions are arbitrary and not reasonably necessary for their stated objective.

Court Disposition

Petition allowed (minority/dissenting view); declaration of unconstitutionality withheld; Parliament given nine months to address the issues.

Orders

  • Parliament to address the issues raised and take necessary steps to rectify the position within nine months.