10.07.2015 Views

By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

usurp the function of the High Court of Tanzania at Arusha to decide the disputebefore it according to law? The factual situation of what has transpired leading upto this appeal negates any allegation of such usurpation. But does it also dispelan attempt to usurp? We are satisfied that it does. Admittedly, Annex D.1 waswritten when the Court was seized of the dispute but this was also before therespondents had filed their counter-affidavit and it was hence annexed to thatcouner-affidavit. We have no doubt at all that the Attorney-General knew that hiscounter-affidavit would not automatically stop the Court from hearing theapplication. If anything at all he hoped to use it as he did to make a preliminaryobjection. Still the court had to hear that objection and make a ruling on it Thatcould not have escaped the attention of the Attorney-General We fail to see,therefore, how the substitution of Annex D.1 for Annex A could be regarded asan attempt to usurp the judicial functionWe might have been persuaded differently had we found that Annex D.1 waswritten in bad faith. But as we have said we have but been so persuaded. Outposition is made stronger by the consideration of another aspect of the matterinvolving section 34 C (3) of the Evidence Act 1967.We are satisfied that there was neither usurpation not attempted usurpation bythe Executive of the judicial function of the High Court to decide the case beforeit according to law375

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!