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...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

person against who he intends issue removal order belongs to one or thecategories specified in section 3 (3) and further that the presence of such personspecified under section 3(3) within a Township or other are within the Districtwhich this ordinal by reasons of any of the attends mentionedRemoval order may be made on any of the following ground that that is to sayThat the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment (other then indefault)In the case of Tunduru District Townships (Removal of undesirable persons)Ordinance, Cap. 104 is not applicable in that part of the Republic and couldtherefore not be called in aid the District Commissioner of Tundureu District Buteven if this ordinance had been applicable in Tunduru District the applicationagainst whom these removal orders were issued are not of the type againstwhom Cap. 104 could be applied and for the same reasons that I have pointedout in the cases of the six application in the Songes District case. Both theDistrict Commissioner of Songea and the District commissioner of TunduruDistrict had therefore acted without jurisdiction. It was incumbent u[on theseofficials to perform within jurisdiction for those4 who act beyond their jurisdictionand their act affect interest or rights of other people as is in the cases underconsideration their actions cannot be allowed to stand. In the cases underconsideration they involve uprooting of innocent citizens from their establishedplaces and businesses. These have settled homes with apparently flourishingbusinesses and children of school going age. These orders by the District437

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!