By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

ecord into the High court that they may be better tried or if there has been abuseor error. Retried. And as Lord Denning said in the Northumberland case (1952 1all E R 122 at 129 the court of King’s Bench has from very early times exercisedcontrol over the orders of any statutory tribunal just as it has done over theorders of justices to keep it within its jurisdiction and to correct their errors of lawon the face of the record. I would therefore hold that the present application iscompetent and justifiable by this court.With regard to the contention that the Board did not observe the principles ofnatural justice, Mr. Shivji has drawn the attention of this court to paragraphs 8 –10 of Omari’s affidavit which aver that some discussion took place between therepresentatives of the Tanzania Harbours Authority and members of the Board inthe absence of the applicants. He also charged that the Board failed to holddue and proper judicial inquiry in that it did not call any evidence or elicit anyinformation touching on the question of efficiency and productivity of the Harbour.With regard to the second ground i.e. excess of jurisdiction the learned counselcharged first that the Board took extraneous and irrelevant matters intoconsideration namely the alleged unlawful procession to the State House andsecondly that in any event it was wrong for the Board to find the applicationsguilty of disciplinary offences which were neither specified or particularizedAs regards the third ground about the unreasonableness of the decision hesubmitted that there was no factual basis for the finding that the continuedemployment of the applicants would adversely affect the efficiency andproductivity of the harbour,And on the question of errors of law he pointed out that the board’s decisionreflected the following errors on its face1. that the visit by the applicant to the state House was an unlawfulprocession or demonstration and328