By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

On my part I would not like to be in a category of “leaky umbrellas” and would thus takeup the broad approach to ouster clauses. I am entitled to examine the decision of therelevant statutory body to see if it was arrived at in accordance with the law or not.It would now go to the merits of the application, just recently in the case of Ex-parte JohnMwombeki Byombalirwa vs. Regional Commissioner and Regional Police Commanderof Kagera Region, 47 I set out the five conditions that need to be proved so that an orderof mandamus may issue. These five conditions are:1 The applicant must have demanded performance and the respondents musthave refused to perform.2 The respondents as public officers must have a public duty to performimposed by statute or any other law but it should not be a duty owed solely tothe state but should be a duty owed as well to the individual citizen.3 The public duty imposed should be of an imprerative nature and not adiscretionary one:4 The applicant must have a locus stand; that is, he must have sufficient interestin the matter, and46. High Court of Tanzania at Mwanza, Miscellaneous Civil Cause No. 22 of1986.5 There should be no other appropriate remedy available or rather better still,the court should feel disposed to exercise its discretion in favour of theapplicant.In the application at hand, conditions Nos. 2,3,4, and 5 generate no controversy. Therespondent concedes that these are non-issues; it is conceded that the respondent as anAssistant Price Commissioner has a public duty of an imperative nature towards theapplicants – that is of reviewing food prices. The applicants own restaurants andhotels and they provide catering services to the general public. They thus fall undersection 13(1) (a) of the Regulation of Prices Act, 1973 as “persons who provideservices” who can move the Assistant Price Commissioner to review process of theirservices.They indeed have substantial interest in the matter as persons who are directlyaffected by the prices of the services they provide which have to be fixed by theAssistant Price Commissioner. They are not mere busybodies. And it is conceded thatthere is no other alternative remedy provided under the relevant statute for theapplicants to resort to.The point I controversy is condition No. 1 The respondent has argued that he did notrefuse to review the process. He contended that he duly reviewed the prices on11/11/1986 and that even prior to this date; the prices in operation had been passed inaccordance with law. Mr.Chama Matata for the respondents said that early in130