By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

unquestionability upon its decisions. These clauses in their nature can onlyrelated to decisions given within the filed of operation ontrusted to the tribunal”.That is the mandato of the HIGH Court when exercision its supervisory role ofinferior tribunals by means of prerogative orders and that power derivas fromCap. 360 as amended by Act No.55 of 1968 as indicated above. But where doesthe High Court get its power to interfere with administrative decision in anordinary civil suit? Admittedly, in the Kaijage case (supra the Tanzania Court ofAppeal was emphatic that though an ordinary civil suit may be filed to challengean administrative decision, yet the scope of judicial review, in the presence of theouster clause was to be confined to examining as to whether the decision makerwent out of his jurisdiction e.g. breach of the principle of natural justice,procedural impropriety, illegality e.t.c. Thus in the case of Mwanza Textile Ltd.Vrs Augustine Masatu: Civil appeal No. 8 of 19988 (unreported), the TanzaniaCourt of Appeal held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to try the suitbecause in that case the employee was not challenging any ministerial decisionwhich was made in excess of jurisdiction or in breach of the principles of naturaljustice. It said that the ex-employee in the Karatu case was simply suing hisemployer for damages for failure to employment despite the order of the Ministerfor labour this is not the plaes respell the decision in the ..butone may legistionately ask as to whether Masatu was not simply enforcing thedecision of the Minister for Laour of reinstatemtn by mean of a civil suit as hewas entitled to under decision 41 and 42 of the Security of Employment Act cap.619