By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

(i) an order of certiorari 8 and section 95 of the Civil procedure code, 1966 if forthe following orders:(i) an order of certiorari to remove to the Hi8 and 8 and 8 and section 95 of 8and se8 and section 95 of the Civil procedure code, 1966 if for the followingorders:(i) an order 8 and section 95 of the Civil procedure code, 1966 is for 8 andsection 95 of the Civil procedure code 1966 is for the followingThe application is supported by a thirty three (33) paragraphed affidavit sworn bythe said Festo Basegele and opposed by a twenty four (24) paragraphed counteraffidavit sworn by Aloysius Mujulizi Serunkuuma a solicitor in the employment ofthe respondent. In the counter affidavit, the respondent also gave notice that atthe hearing of the application by Festo Balegele and 794 others, the respondentwas going to raise a preliminary objection on points of law. Paragraph 2 of thecounter affidavit detailed the nature of the preliminary objection on points of lawto be raised. This was duly raised on the hearing date. Both Mr. Kakoti and Mr.Mujulizi argued the respondents case on the raised preliminary objection Mr.Mwaikusa replied for the applicants Briefly the raised preliminary objection was tothe effect that the application before the court was misconceived and thusqualified to be dismissed. I reserved ruling when I came to give it ti was to theeffect that the raised preliminary objection was without merit I dismissed andundertook to give my reasons for that decision in the final order of the court.In the matter of an Application for orders of Certiorari, prohibition and mandamusby Abdi Athumani and 9 others v. the district commissioner of Tunduru Districtand 3 others 57 this court (Rubama, J.) had addressed itself on the issue thathad been raised bt the respondent as preliminary point in the matter now beforethe court. I still hold that finding valid and follow it in this application.In the case of Abdi Athumani and 9 others (supra) the applicants had sought andobtained orders of Ceriorari prohibition and mandamus. Some of them had beenrefused trading licences by the appropriate licensing authorities not inaccordance with the Business Licensing Act, 1972 58 Eight of the applicants hadbeen saved with Removal orders irregulary issued under the township (Removalof Undesirable Persons) ordinance. 59 Ruling on that application Abdi Athumaniand 9 others (supra) I had statedIn entertaining these applications be the tem applicants this court has usurped nopowers this court had had powers to entertain such application for ages seeNorthern Tanzania Farmers Co-operative Society limitedv W.H Shellukingo(preliminary objection) 60 this court a creature of stature in entertaining suchapplications performs for the benefit of the people As was stated by Brett, L.J inThe Queen (on the prosecution of the penalty local Board) v. The LocalGovernment Board 61 that: wherever the legislature entrusts to any body ofpersons other than its superior courts the power of imposing an obligation upon443