By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

and held that the High Court had power to enquire into the decision of dismissal of anemployee to see if the same was arrived at in breach of rules of natural justice or not.Surprisingly in Tanzania in cases filed to challenge detention orders under the PreventiveDetention Act, 1962 26 both the High Court and the Tanzania Court of Appeal have takenthe narrow approach. That statute had the ouster clause in section 3 which now has beenrepealed by Act No. 2 of 1985. That section read;“No order made under this Act shall be questioned in any court.”In the case of Ali Yusufu Mpore vs. R 27 Samatta, J. stated that the High Court could not gofurther than the “authenticity” of the detention order to see if it is properly signed andsealed.A similar approach was adopted by. Maganga, J. in Ahmed Janmohamed Dhirani vs,R. 28And later Bahati, J. echoed what his colleagues had said earlier in the case of Dhikri. 29Then the Tanzania Court of Appeal in the Case of A.G vs. Lesinoi Ndeinai 30 adopted thenarrow approach despite the fact the Anisminic Case was mentioned. In that case Nyalali,C. J. said:25. (1970) E.A 487 (K)26. Cap. 49027. High Court of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam, Miscellaneous Criminal Cause No. 2 of1977 (Unreported)28.(1979) L.R.T. No 129. High Court of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam, Miscellaneous Criminal Cause No. 10 of1984.30. (1980) L.R.T No. 215Designated by him for that purpose was summoned to appear as a party to theproceedings in the trial court.3. That the learned trial judge erred in law in commencing and continuing theproceedings in the trial Court without summoning the Attorney – General or hisrepresentative designated by him for that purpose to appear as a party to theproceedings in the trial Court.”256