By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

exactly what happened in the case of Patrick Maziku v. G.A Sebabili and 8others (supra).However, in this case the ploy has boomeranged. The governments had beenhosted by its own petard.Be that as it may. In the event the preliminary objection raised by the Republic isdismissed, The suit will proceed to trial as scheduled. Costs in the cause. Orderaccordingly.Pumbun and AnotherVersusAttorney-General and Another 64The appellants sought to sue the government in the High court to recoverdamages for trespass, assault an conversion. The necessary. Fiat or consentimposed by Section 6 of the Government Proceedings Act, 1967 65 had beensought but was withheld. Upon consent being withheld the court was called uponby the appellant to declare the relevant Section unconstitutional for it impedes orobstructs access to High Court enshrined under Articles, 13 (3) and (6) (a) and30 (3) of the Constitution. They further contended that Section 6 also infringesArticles of the Constitution which make provisions for separation o powers,namely Articles4 (1) 108 and 13 (6) (a) which generally confer jurisdiction on theHigh court to hear and determine claims on the Basic Rights in a fair62 High Court of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam, Civil Case No. 47 of 1992(Unreported)63 PETER, Chris Maina, “Five Years of Bill of Rights in Tanzania Drawing ABalance-Sheet, opcit.64 Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Arusha, Civil Appeal No. 32 of 1992 Reportedin (1993)2 LRC 317 (Coram: Kisanga J.A Mnzavas. J.A. and Mfalila J.A) Appealform the judgment and Decree of the High ‘Count of Tanzania at Arusha, Munuo282