By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

Mr. Mwaikusa argued that the relevant factor that the respondent should haveconsidered in selecting Kunduchi Mtongani as the61 [1882] 10 Q.B 309 (AC) at 32162 AT pp. 22 and 2363 Act No. 8 of 198264 [1948] 1 K.B 223City’s collected refuse and waste dumping are were the general landdevelopment plan of the area that Kunduch Mtonga was zoned a residentialarea that Kunduchi mtongani was not within one of five sites zoned forgarbage disposal (ii) choice of the are was without plausible justification Mr.Mwaikusa pointed out that it was one fo the duties of the respondent toenforce as proved by section 36 to 38 of the Town and Country planningOrdinance 65 land development plan. The Counsel submitted that therespondent was dumping refuse at an area marked residential and where infact people are residing thereby posing a health hazard and nuisance to theresidents by this decision the Counsel went on to submit the place which is atany rate too small for the requirements of the respondent has been asattraction of swarms of flies and is offensively smelly thereby making life ofthe residents extremely unbearable. To compound this state the refuse hasbeen put on fire emanating smoke. Mr. Mwaikusa concluded that KunduchiMtongani as a refuse primitive. The place has been turned into a healthhazard and a nuisance to its residents.The decision of the respondent, Mr. Mwaikusa went on to submit lookedobjectively was devoid of any plausible justification that could have made3any reasonable body of persons reach it; Bromley London Borough Council vGreater London Council and Another 66 (iii) appeared to have reached itsdecision of the choice of the area through outside dictation Mr. Mwaikusasubmitted that it appeared the respond was dictated to by the Centralgovernment on the choice of Kunduch Mtohanga as the City refuse dumpingplace. As the enabling Act does not permit the respondent to abdicate itspowers in favour of another body, Mr. Mwaikusa argued, the act of therespondent was ultra vires the Act H. Lavender and Son Ltd. V minister ofHousing and Local Government 67 Mr. Mwaikusa further submitted that theapplicants residnts of Kunduchi Mtongani were aggrieved and thus with locusstandi to apply for the orders of certiorari and prohibition Regina v. LiverpoolCorporation Ex parte Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators Association and Another68 Mr. Mwaikusa lastly prayed for an order of mandamus by requiring therespondent (i) stoppage of the nuisance it was causing (ii) compliance withthis courts order issued in the case of Joseph D. Kessy and Other v. The CityCouncil of Dar es Salaam69 (iii) compliance with the land development planby selecting one of the five sites designated for the City’s disposal of collectedre3fuse and waste as shown in the City’s master plan.445