By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

individuals the courts ought to exercise as widely as they can the power ofcontrolling those bodies If they attempted to exceed their statutory powers. It isone of High courts duty to exercise supervisory powers on bodies other that asuperior court that ate entrusted by parliament to take decision that affect therights of the people to ensure that these bodies perform within the limits set tothem by the parliament. This ensures consistent application of the country’sentrenched principles of freedom and justice by the Government agencies. Theparliaments decision ensures avoidance of this Republics duties being executedon peoples whims where people are reduced to numbers without any personalregard to hardship of the very people said by the officials to be serving. Thesesupervisory powers ensure existence of tangible values like justice truth,consistency within which are embedded elements such as compassion anddedication. The grant by the parliament of these supervisory powers ensures thatexpediency or might is right forces that are always inconsistent and withoutpermanency are eliminated in entertaining such application the High Court doesnot set itself to embarrass or belittle the Government of its Agencies in order foritself to look more important in the eyes of the people. As stated the supervisorypowers have been grated to the High Court by the Government and commonsense dictated that Government would not have put itself in such untenableposition 62The following facts are not in dispute.(i) that kunduchi Mtongani is within the area jurisdiction of the Dar es Salaamcity Council(ii) that Kunduchi Mtongani is zoned in the respondents master plan as aresidential area(iii) that the applicants reside at Kunduchi Mtongani(iv) that the respondent has been dumping the city’s collected refuse andwaste at Kunduchi Mtongani and instead of at one of the five sites designatedin the City’s Master plan for dumping the collected city’s refuse and wasteeffective September 1991 soon following this courts order in Civil Case299/88 (Dar es Salaam) in which respondent was ordered not to dump refuseat Tabata(v) that the dumped refuse and waste at Kunduchi Mtongani is presentlyburning emitting much smoke covering wide area(vi) that the dumped refuse and waste emanated offensive smell and hasattracted swarms of flies. Mr. Mwaikusa correctly submitted that refusecollection and its disposal was one of the respondents mandatory dutiesunder the Local Government (urban Authorities) Act, 1982 He further correctlysubmitted hat the respondent was required by law to perform its statutoryduties lawfully. Mr mwaikusa submitted however that the respondent indisposing the collected city\s refuse and waste at Kunduchi Mtongani wasultra vireos the Act as the Dar es Sallsm City Council the respondent; (i) hadnot taken into consideration the relevant factors in coming to its decision;associated provincial picture Houses limted v. Waynesburg Corporation 64444