By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

sought but was withheld The requirement for consent to sue the Government isimposed by Section 6 of the Government proceedings Act 1967 66 .as amendedby Government proceedings (Amendment) Act, 1974 67 (hereinafter to bereferred top simply as Section 6) upon consent being withheld therefore, theHigh Court was called upon by the appellants to rule on the constitutionality ofSection 6 and to hold that that provision was null and void as against theConstitution of the united Republic of TanzaniaThe respondent Republic did not wish to file any written statement of defense tothe claim instead it lodged with the court a preliminary objection that the suit wasincompetent for want of the Attorney-General’s consent to sue the Government.The case was then adjourned, upon application by Counsel, for writtensubmissions after which the Court (Munuo, J. Mrs.) Ruled that Section 6 was notunconstitutional and proceeded to dismiss the suit as being incompetent. It isfrom that ruling that this appeal now arises Arguing the appeal before us wereMr. A. Mughwai, learned advocate, for the appellants, for the appellants andMrs. A. Sumari, learned State Attorney, for the respondent Republic.In the course of hearing the appeal, and during the submission by Mrs. Suamri,some doubt arose whether consent to sue had, in fact been sought and withheldas claimed by the appellant’s Coursed. However, this doubt was resolved whencounsel for the appellants furnished the court with documentary evidence thatconsent was in fact sough and refused. Upon receipt of this information Mrs.Sumari stated that high to she had been acting on wrong information soughtfrom and supplied by the Attorney-General’s Chambers, Dar es salaam66 Act No. 16 of 1967.67 Act No. 40 of 1974.That the appellants had not applied for any consent to sue the Government sheadded that because of such misinformation she did not address the real issuewhich was before the High Court, namely, the constitutionality of the requirementof consent she had concentrated on the contention that the suit was incompetentfor want of consent. Asked what course she proposed to adopt now that she wasinformed of the true position, she readily replied that the hearing of the appealshould continue, adding that during the short adjournment she had preparedherself sufficiently to respond to Mr. Mughwai’s submissions. On that not wewent on the complete the hearing of the appeal and to conclude the matter even284