By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

The Assistant Price Commissioner it would appear only wanted to please the patronsof hotels but did not consider the fact that he was shifting the heavy financial burdento the hotel owners apparently because he thought they ought to have it as they are“capitalists”!! This attitude of treating private businessmen and women as a nuisanceor pariahs ought to stop and has recently been a subject of a scathing attack from onedistinguished journalist of this land Rose Kalemera as reported as reported in theSunday News of 12 th April, 1987. I share her feelings revulsion at some hypocrites orpseudo-socialists when she said;“The was a time in Tanzania when success in private business was equated with anunforgivable sin. A successful businessman was viewed as a traitor to the Ujamaacause –an idelological Judas Iscariot. This was due to the misguided concept,advocated by party politicians who sought praise as Ujamaa front-linesrs, thatsocialism was synonymous to poverty. Paradoxically,the very preachers of the gospelof poverty amassed immense immense wealth through clandestine means but posedas the poorest, just to cover themselves up.”The respondent in this case appears to harbour similar misguided conceptions aboutthe hotel owners. However whatever his feelings towards them, he is duty bound toconsider their interests when fixing prices. The Assistant Price Commissioner doesnot have an unfettered discretion on the matter. As Lord Reid reminded us in the caseof discretion entrusted to a Minister in Padfield vs. Minister of Agriculture64 wherehe said:“If the Minister by reason of his having misconstrued the Actor for any other reason,so uses his discretion as to thwart or run counter to the policy and objects of the Act,then our law would be very defective if persons aggrieved were not entitled to theprotection of the court.”Equally in this country, our law is not defective so as to deny a remedy where theAssistant Price Commissioner misconstrues the law as well as the extent of hispowers under the relevant legislation.64 (1968) 1 All E.R 694.Thirdly we have not been told that the Assistant price commissioner took into account infixing the maximum prices the advise of the District Advisory committee as he isrequired to by section 10(6) of the Regulation of Prices Act 1973.Mr Chama matata didnot allude to this factor at all besides mentioning the 27% increase after conducting amarket survey. Failure to take the advice from the Advisory Committee was in my viewfatal and rendered the decision of the Assistant Price Commissioner invalid.136