By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

that the Government has set on itself to seek redress in courts of law. A moveby citizens such as these applicants have taken in search of what theyconsider as their right should not be taken as intended to embarrass theGovernment or its Agencies its the interest of all people of good will, reasonforesight, moderation and certainly the4 Government that one of itsinstitutions clothed with appropriate powers exists to reassure the people thatthe Republic’s admirable objectives and their executions are intact.On consideration of the affidavit, counter affidavit and the very elaborate andable submissions by three counsel, I am of the view that the respondentdecision of disposing the City’s refuse and waste at Kunduchi Mtongan wasultra vires the Local Government (Urban Authorities) Act, 1982 for thereasons submitted by Mr. MwaikusaWhich I accept. Further the manner of disposal of the collected refuse andwaste terminates any possible claim by mr. Kakot that the respodnt are in theprocess of reconditioning the disused stone quarries at Kunduch Mtonganmy collection refuse from all over the city to dump it at Kunduchi Mtonganicontrary to the City’s master plan that kunduchi Mtongani is by this masterplan not zoned as one of the five sites for refuse disposal but zonedresidential and that there are several people residing there to whom anuisance has been created. The place has been made intolerably smelly anddirty with flies all over and the deposited refuse burning and emanatingsmoke. It is a statutory duty of the City Council, the respondent to shopnuisance and not to create it. The submission by Mr. Kakoti that therespondent was reconditioning the land at Kunduchi Mtongani Stands noclose examination. What the respondent id going now is not sanitary landfiling as that process is understood but just refuse dumping. The dumpedrefuse attracts flies and emits foul smell the dumped refuse which has beenset fire to the dumped refuse it is t after effects that is of concern here As toMr. Munulizi’s submission that the respondent intends to use KunduchiMtongani dump temporarily to give itself time to look and locate another site,I only have to state that the respondent has sites in its master plan for refusedisposal, that question of unprepared ness does not arise. But even if themaster plan had not provided for the possible sits for refuse dumping I wouldstill not find merit in the submission of Mr. Mujulizi on the issue of being giventime to look for a dumping sit. Refuse collection and disposal as one of thestatutory duties of the respondent should have been given priority treatmentit deserved. Peoples health and enjoyment of life are partly dependent onliving on healthy surroundings. I would further reject Mr. Mujulizi’s submissionin this regard for the very reasons stated by Lugakingira, J, in Joseph D.Kessy and others v. The council (supra):I will say at once that I have never heard it anywhere for a public authority oreven and individual to go to court and confidently seek for permission topollute the environment and endanger peoples lives regardless of theirnumber. Such wondered appear to be peculiarly Tanzanian but I regret to447