By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

Attorney General was duly summoned, and in support of this submission herelied on a summons dated 19.10.93 wan to the Attorney General and requiringhim to appear for mention of the case on 12.11.93 However, in that summons theAttorney General is not cited as a party, He is summoned merely as the AttorneyGeneral, while the only parties to the case are shown to be Tanzania shoecompany Ldt. And 26 others (plaintiffs) and National Housing corporation(Defendant).In this connection reference was made to the case of Lausa Alfan Salum and 106others V. Minister for lands Housing and urban Development and nationalHousing Corporation civil appeal no. 15 of (unreported) in which, as in thepresent case, the constitutionality of Government Notice No. 41 of 1992 waschallenged. It was contend that in that case the Attorney General was not citedas a party, and yet this court proceeded to deal with the appeal on the merits. Itfirst place in that case no objection was raised that the Attorney General was notcited or summoned as a party. In the present case however, the non-summoningof the Attorney General was objected to case cited the minister for lands Housingand urban Development as a party and at the hearing the minister wasrepresented by the Senior state Attorney, The odder object of sub-section (2)above quoted is to make sure that the Government is afforded the opportunity tobe heard upon an application for a prerogative order. Thus it seems to us thatthe citing of the minister instead of the Attorney General was not an irregularitywhich went to the root of the matter. For, one case say that the Government was261