Constitutional Litigation in Tanzania

OUTLINES

PART I

CONCEPT OF CONSTITUTION LITIGATION UNDER BASIC RIGHTS AND DUTIES

LAWS GOVERNING CONSTITUTION LITIGITATION UNDER BASIC RIGHTS AND DUTIES

PROCEDURES FOR THE INSTITUTION CONSTITUTION CASE UNDER BRAD

DRAFTING THE ORIGINATING SUMMONS AND AFFIDAVIT

DRAFTING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

DRAFTING THE JUDGEMENT

PART II

CONSTITUTION LITIGATION IN THE SPECIAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

THE CONCEPTS CONSTITUTION LITIGATION IN THE SPECIAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

LAWS GOVERNING

PROCEDURES FOR THE INSTITUTION OF CASE

DRAFTING THE ORIGINATING SUMMONS AND AFFIDAVIT

DRAFTING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION

DRAFTING THE JUDGEMENT

Constitutional Litigation

Constitutional Litigation – involves cases relating to the violation of basic rights and duties and cases relating to other Constitutional issues. Section 4 of the Basic Rights duties Enforcement Act [Cap 3 RE 2023 says that

Categories of Constitutional Litigation

Constitutional Litigation under the Basic Rights and Duties
Constitutional Litigation under the interpretation of the Costitution and Union Matters
CONSTITUTION LITIGATION UNDER THE BASIC RIGHTS AND DUTIES

Section 4 of the Basic Rights Duties Enforcement Act Cap 3 provides says that;-

“Where any person alleges that any of the provisions of Articles 12 to 29 of the Constitution has been / is being or is likely to be contravened in relation to him, he may, without prejudice to any other action with respect to same matter that is lawfully available apply to the High Court for redress.

The Laws governed institution of Constitutional cases

The Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania [Cap 2 RE 2010]
The Basic Rights Duties Enforcement Act [Cap 3 RE 2023]
The Judicature and Application of laws Act [Cap 358 RE 2023]
The Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No 2) Act No 2 of 2020 amends Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act [Cap 3]
The Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement (Practice and Procedure) Rules GN 304 of 2014
The Judicature and Application of laws (Constitution Petition) (Practice and Procedure) Rules GN 540 of 2015
The Appellate Jurisdiction Act [Cap 141 RE 2023]
The Interpretation of laws Act [Cap 1 Re 2023
The Interpretations of Laws (Use of English language in Courts) (Circumstances and Conditions) Rules GN 66 of 2002
The Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules GN 368 of 2009
The Tanzania Court of Appeal (Amendment) Rules GN 36 of 2010
The Tanzania Court of Appeal (Amendment) Rules GN 362 of 2017
The Tanzania Court of Appeal (Amendment) Rules GN 344 of 2017
The Tanzania Court of Appeal (Amendment) Rules GN. 327 of 2022
The Tanzania Court of Appeal (Amendment) Rules GN 188 of 2024
The Judicature and Application of law (Electronic Filling) Rules GN 148 of 2018
The Judicature and Application of laws (Electronic Filling) (Amendment Rules GN 609 of 201
The Court Fees Rule (GN 247 of 2018)
The Commission for Human Right and Good Governance Act [Cap. 391 R.E. 2023]
The High Court Registries (Amendment) Rules GN 111 of 2019
The High Court Registries GN 96 of 2005
The High Court Registries (Amendment) Rules GN 81 of 2026
The High Court Registries (Amendment) Rules GN 61A 2024

The Institution of Constitutional Litigation

Means the modality of move the court to determine a certain remedy. In the Constitutional cases when you instituting Constitution cases, you need to consider the Jurisdiction.

What is Jurisdiction – means the power or authority of a court to hear and determine a cause, to adjudicate and exercise any judicial power in relation to it.

The Kinds of Jurisdiction in the Constitutional Litigation

Original Jurisdiction
Appellate Jurisdiction
Exclusive Jurisdiction
Territorial Jurisdiction / Geographical Jurisdiction

Original Jurisdiction

Refer to the power of a Court to hear or try a case as a matter for first instance. In the Constitutional cases Article 30 (3) provides that,

“Any person claiming that any provision in this Part of this Chapter or any law concerning his right or duty owed to him has been/ is being or is likely to be violated by any person anywhere in the United Republic, may institute proceedings for redress in the High Court”

Read together – Section 4 Subsection 1

“Where any person alleges that any of the provisions of Articles 12 to 29 has been/ is being or is likely to Contravened in relation to him, he may, without prejudice to any other action with respect to the same matter is lawfully available apply to the High Court for redress

Analysis.

It clear that the provision of Article 30 (3) of CURT and Cap 2 and Subsection 1 of Section 4 of the BRADEA Cap 3 Concurrent speaks about the Original Jurisdiction of the High Court to hear and determine the Constitution case.

Also Section 8 (1)

“The High Court shall have and may exercise original Jurisdiction

To hear and determine any application made by any person in pursuance of Section 4.

Exclusive Jurisdiction

Is the legal authority granted to a specific court to hear and decide a particular type of a case to the exclusion of all other Courts.

In the Constitution cases the High Court vested Jurisdiction to hear and determine case in exclusion of Subordinate Courts – Section 9, Speaks about the exclusivity of Subordinate Court.

“Where in any proceedings in a Subordinate Court any question arises to the Contravention of any of the provisions of Articles 12 to 29 of the Constitution, the Residing magistrate shall, unless the parties to the parties agree to the Contrary or the Magistrate is of the opinion that the raising of the question is merely frivolous or vexatious, refer the question to the High Court. If the question arises before a primary court, the magistrate shall refer the question to the court of a resident magistrate which shall determine whether or not there exists a matter for reference to the High Court.

Appellate Jurisdiction

Means the power of the Court to hear appeals from the lower Courts. As far as Constitution Cases is concerned the Court of Appeal has the jurisdiction to hear appeals from High Court. See Section 14 (1) of BRADEA Cap 3. Says that;

“A person aggrieved by any decision of the High Court on an application brought under Section 4, 5 or 6 may appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The Procedure and Practice governed Appeals to the Court of Appeal shall be taught when you reach LLB 3.

Modes of Institution the Constitution

The law say under section 4 that you may APPLY So Section 5 elaborate and rule 3 defines the word “Application” to mean an application brought by or on behalf of a person for the purpose of enforcing or securing the enforcement of fundamental rights.

Section 5 under [Marginal Notes] say [Application to be made by petition] However when you read full Section you will rendered that the intention of the legislative was very specific It says that,

“An application to the High Court in pursuance of Section 4 shall be made by Petition to be filed in appropriate Registry of the High Court by Originating Summons Rules 4 of GN 304 of 2014 is very clear that;

“Any petition filed in accordance with the provision of the Act shall be by way of Originating Summons.

Therefore the rule say Originating Summons however that originating Summons must be accompanying by Affidavit.

Section 4(2) of BRADEA Cap 3

“Without Prejudice to the provision of the Good Governance Act, relating to powers of the Commissioner to Institute proceedings, an application under Subsection (1) shall not be admitted by the High Court unless it is accompanied by an affidavit stating the extent to which the contravention of the Provisions of Articles 12 to 29 of the Constitution have affected such person personally.

Therefore: The application to the High Court is by way of Originating Summons supported by Affidavit

Contents of originating Summons.

See Section 6 of BRAD EA. Cap 3 and practices

Name of the Court.
Case Number
Citation of the Constitution
Citation of the Basic Rights Duties Enforcement Act.
Citation of the Basic Rights & Rules
The provision of law that violate the Constitution.
Name and Address of the Petitioner [Section 6 (a) of BRADEA]
The name and Address of each Person against whom redress is sought. [See Section 6 (b) of the BRADEA]
Title of the Document
Enabling section and provision of the Constitution
Opening Statement
Orders.
The grounds upon which redress is sought. [See section 6 (c) of the BRADEA]
The specific Section in Part III of Chapter one of the Constitution which are the basis of the petition]
Particular of the facts, but not the evidence to prove such facts, relied on:
Date and Place where the Signature of the Registrar will be endorsed
Presentation Date:
Drawer Address
Drawee Address and service upon

Drafting Originating Summons

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC TANZANIA

(SUB- REGISTRY)

AT DAR-ES-SAALAM

MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL CAUSE NO. ______ OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA 1977 [CAP 2 R.E 2010]

AND

IN THE MATTER OF BASIC RIGHTS AND DUTIES ENFORCEMENT ACT

[CAP. 3 R.E. 2023]

AND

IN THE MATTER OF BASIC RIGHTS AND DUTIES ENFORCEMENT

(PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE) RULES, G.N 304 OF 2014

AND

IN THE MATTER OF A PETITION TO CHALLENGE THE PROVISION OF SECTION 20 (1) (b) OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION STUDENTS’ LOAN BOARD ACT

CAP. 178 AS AMENDED BY THE WRITTEN LAWS (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) (NO.3 ) ACT ,2016 FOR BEING UNCOSTITUTIONAL

BETWEEN

SHUKURU MLWAFU…………………………………………………………….PETITIONER

VERSUS

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL…………………………………………….….1^ST RESPONDENT

HIGHER EDUCATION STUDENTS LOAN BOARD………….…..………2^ND RESPONDENT

ORIGINATING SUMMONS

(Made under Articles 26(2) and 30(3) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, Sections 4 and 5 of the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act, Cap 3 [R.E 2002] and Rule 4 of the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2014)

LET THE PARTIES CONCERNED, SHUKURU MLWAFU C/O LEGAL AND HUMAN RIGHT CENTRE of P.O Box 79633 of Dar es Salaam and the Attorney General of Tanzania of P.O Box 9050 Dar es Salaam, appear before the Honorable Judge __________, sitting in Chambers on the _______, day of _______, 2017 at 9:00 O’clock in the forenoon or soon thereafter on the hearing of the Petition on the part of the Petitioner, that this Honourable Court may be pleased to declare that;

The provision of section 20 (1) (b) of the Higher Education Students’ Loan Board, Cap. 178 As amended by The Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No.3) Act, 2016 is unconstitutional for offending the provision of Article 24 (1) and 13 (1) and (2) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania of 1977 as amended.

Each party to bare its own costs,

ON THE GROUNDS THAT;

The provision of section 20 (1) (b) of the Higher Education Students’ Loan Board, Cap. 178 As amended by The Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No.3) Act, 2016 is unconstitutional for denial people right to property as provided under the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania of 1977 as amended.
The provision of section 20 (1) (b) of the Higher Education Students’ Loan Board, Cap. 178 As amended by The Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No.3) Act, 2016 is unconstitutional for being discriminatory between loan beneficiaries as provided under the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania of 1977 as amended.

SPECIFIC ARTICLES IN PART III OF CHAPTER ONE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA 1977 AS AMENDED

The provision of section 20 (1) (b) of the Higher Education Students’ Loan Board, Cap. 178 As amended by The Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No.3) Act, 2016 is unconstitutional for denial people right to property as provided under Art 24 (1) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania of 1977 as amended.
The provision of section 20 (1) (b) of the Higher Education Students’ Loan Board, Cap. 178 As amended by The Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No.3) Act, 2016 is unconstitutional for being discriminatory between loan beneficiaries as provided under Art 13 (1) and (2) the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania of 1977 as amended.

PARTICULARS OF FACTS RELIED UPON;

That, the Petitioner was a loan beneficiary from the Higher Education Students’ Loan Board (hereinafter “the HESLB”).

That, Petitioner received the loan from the HESLB in order to facilitate his undergraduate studies when he was pursuing a Bachelor of Laws (LL. B) at the University of Dar es Salaam.

That, the loan which was given by the HESLB to the Petitioner from October 2008 to June 2012 included tuition fees, stationary allowance, meal and accommodation allowances.

That, the Petitioner successfully completed his studies in 2012 and 2014 for Bachelor degree and Master degree respectively.

That, upon successful completion of the studies the Petitioner was employed at the University of Dodoma as an Assistant Lecturer of Law.

That, immediate after completion of the probation period the HESLB started to deduct 8% from the Petitioner’s basic salary in order to recover the loan which was given to the Petitioner when he was pursuing undergraduate studies at the University of Dar es Salaam.

That, the 8% deduction stated in paragraph 6 above was initiated by the HESLB without any prior consultation or notice to the Petitioner. The Petitioner was just taken into surprise to learn that some amount from his salary was missing.

That, the loan agreement signed in 2008 to 2012 between the Petitioner and the HESLB did neither provide for the deduction to be 8% nor did require the Petitioner to pay annual interest (retention fee) for the loan advanced to the Petitioner from 2008 to 2012.

That, late 2016 the HESLB Act was amended by the Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendment) No. 3 Act 2016, among other things, it repealed and replaced section 20 of the HESLB Act with effect of raising the deduction to loan beneficiaries from 8% to not less than 15% so as to enable the HESLB recover the money from all the beneficiaries including the Petitioner herein.

That, the amendment and implementation of the law came into effect when the HESLB was already deducting 8% from the Petitioner’s basic salary as a loan beneficiary. The Petitioner started paying the said 8% in July 2015.

That, the HESLB started implementation of the amendment made by the Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendment) No. 3 Act 2016 in February 2017 by deducting 15% from the Petitioner’s basic salary.

That, the application of the said amendment applies retrospectively as against the Petitioner salary and denies him fair remuneration commensurate to his work.

That, the retrospective application of the amended of the HESLB Act has prejudiced the Petitioner obligation to repay the loan and gone contrary to the well established principle that no law should apply retrospective.

That, the Petitioner does not dispute the HESLB to recover the loan from the Petitioner through making monthly deduction from the Petitioner’s salary but the Petitioner only dispute the retrospective application of the HESLB Act.

That, the provision of section 20 (1) (b) of the Higher Education Students’ Loan Board, Cap. 178 As amended by The Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No.3) Act, 2016 is denial people right to property which is provided under the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania of 1977 as amended.
That, the provision of section 20 (1) (b) of the Higher Education Students’ Loan Board, Cap. 178 As amended by The Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No.3) Act, 2016 is discriminatory between loan beneficiaries as provided under the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania of 1977 as amended.

THIS ORIGINATING SUMMONS has been taken out on the grounds and reasons set-forth in the Affidavit of SHUKURU MLWAFU which is annexed hereto and on any further grounds and reasons to be adduced at the hearing.

Given under my Hand and Seal of the Court this _____, day of _________, 2017.

____________________

REGISTRAR

Presented for filing this ___________, day of _____________________, 2017.

____________________

REGISTRY OFFICER

DRAWN AND FILED GRATIS BY;

Legal and Human Rights Centre,

Legal Aid Clinic, Justice Mwalusanya House

Kinondoni Biafra, Isere Street, House No. 660,

P. O. Box 79633,

Dar es Salaam

www.humanrights.or.tz

COPY TO BE SERVED UPON;

THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

ATTORNEY GENERAL’S CHAMBERS,

DAR-ES-SALAAM

THE HESLB,

DAR-ES-SALAAM

AFFIDAVIT

In the case of Majuto Chikawe and Another vs the Trustees of Tanzania National Parks (Misc. Labor Application No 8 of 2021) [2021] TZHC 2497 (29 March 2021)

In this case they adopting Oxford Dictionary of Law, Seventh Edition pg. 3

An Affidavit is a sworn written Statement of evidence used mainly to support certain applications and, in some circumstances, as evidence in Court proceedings. The Person who makes the Affidavit must swear or affirm that the contents are true before a person authorized to take oath in respect of the particular land of Affidavit”

Again Section 4(2) of the BRADEA speaks about the Affidavit

Contents of Affidavit in Supporting of originating Summons

Name of the Court
Case Number and nature of the case
full Citation of the Constitution
Full Citation of the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act
Full Citation of the Basic Rights and Duties Rules
The Provision of the Said laws that violate the Constitution
Name of the Petitioner
Name of the Respondents
Title of the Document [AFFIDAVIT]
Paragraph that shows the chronological facts of
The Date and Signature of the Petitioner
Verification
Date of Verification
Attestation clause
Date of Presentation
Drawer Address
Drawee Address

DRAFTING AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE ORIGINATING SUMMONS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC TANZANIA

(MAIN REGISTRY)

AT DAR-ES-SAALAM

MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL CAUSE NO. ______ OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA 1977AS AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME

AND

IN THE MATTER OF BASIC RIGHTS AND DUTIES ENFORCEMENT ACT

[CAP. 3 R.E. 2002]

AND

IN THE MATTER OF BASIC RIGHTS AND DUTIES ENFORCEMENT

(PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE) RULES, 2014

AND

IN THE MATTER OF A PETITION TO CHALLENGE THE PROVISION OF SECTION 20 (1) (b) OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION STUDENTS’ LOAN BOARD ACT

CAP. 178 AS AMENDED BY THE WRITTEN LAWS (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) (NO.3 ) ACT ,2016 FOR BEING UNCOSTITUTIONAL

BETWEEN

SHUKURU MLWAFU…………………………………………………………….PETITIONER

VERSUS

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL…………………………………………….….1^ST RESPONDENT

HIGHER EDUCATION STUDENTS LOAN BOARD………….…..………2^ND RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT

I, SHUKURU MLWAFU, an Adult, Male, Christian and resident of Dodoma DO HEREBY TAKE OATH and STATE the following:-

That, I am Petitioner in this Petition and thus conversant with the facts I am about to depose hereunder.

That, the Petitioner is a natural person who lives in Dodoma and works at the University of Dodoma as Assistant Lecturer.

That, the Petitioner was a loan beneficiary of the Higher Education Students’ Loan Board (hereinafter “the HESLB”).

That, Petitioner received the loan from the HESLB in order to facilitate his undergraduate studies when he was pursuing a Bachelor of Laws (LL. B) at the University of Dar es Salaam.

That, the loan which was given by the HESLB to the Petitioner from October 2008 to June 2012 included tuition fees, stationary, meal and accommodation.

That, the Petitioner successfully completed his studies in 2012 and 2014 for Bachelor degree and Master degree respectively.

That, upon successful completion of the studies the Petitioner was employed at the University of Dodoma as an Assistant Lecturer of Law.

That, immediate after completion of the probation period the HESLB started to deduct 8% from the Petitioner’s basic salary in order to recover the loan which was given to the Petitioner when he was pursuing undergraduate studies at the University of Dar es Salaam. A copy of the loan statement is herein attached and marked as annexure “M-1” which leave of the court is craved to form part of this Affidavit.

That, the 8% deduction stated in paragraph 6 above was initiated by the HESLB without any prior consultation or notice to the Petitioner. The Petitioner was just taken into surprise to learn that some amount from his salary was missing.

That, the loan agreement signed in 2008 to 2012 between the Petitioner and HESLB did neither provide for the deduction to be 8% nor did require the Petitioner to pay annual interest (retention fee) for the loan advanced to the Petitioner from 2008 to 2012. A copy of the said loan agreement is herein attached and marked as annexure “M-2” which leave of the court is craved to form part of this Affidavit.

That, late 2016 the HESLB Act was amended, among other things, it raised the deduction from 8% to 15% so as to enable the HESLB recover the money from all the beneficiaries including the Petitioner herein.

That, the amendment and implementation of the law came into effect when the HESLB was already deducting 8% from the Petitioner’s basic salary as a loan beneficiary.

That, the said amendment of the law applies retrospective.

That, the right to property and the right to non- discrimination is provided under the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania of 1977 as amended.

Dated at Dar es Salaam this ____________ day of __________________ 2017,

________________

PETITIONER

VERIFICATION

I, SHUKURU MLWAFU, the Petitioner herein do hereby VERIFY that all what is stated in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 hereinabove is true to the best of my knowledge.

Verified at Dar-es-salaam this ___________ day of __________________2017,

__________________

PETITIONER

Sworn at Dar-es-salaam by the said SHUKURU MLWAFU

who is known to me personally/identified

to me by _______________________________ _________________

the latter being known to me personally DEPONENT

this______ day of ___________2017.

BEFORE ME:

Name: ________________________

Address: ______________________

Signature: _____________________

Designation: ____________________

Presented for filing this ____________day of _____________________, 2017,

_______________________

REGISTRY OFFICER

DRAWN AND FILED GRATIS BY;

Legal and Human Rights Centre,

Legal Aid Clinic, Justice Mwalusanya House

Kinondoni Biafra, Isere Street, House No. 660,

P. O. Box 79633,

Dar es Salaam

www.humanrights.or.tz

Stage 2:

After the Preparation of the originating Summons and Affidavit must be filed to the Court. The Current position the document must filed via online system it is now governed by the Judicature and Application of laws (Online filling Rules) GN 148 of 2018.

Stage 3:

Services to the Respondent. Section 7(1) A copy of the petition shall be served by or on behalf of the petitioner on each person against whom redress is sought.

Subsection (2) of Section (7)

“Where redress is sought against the Government a copy of the petition shall be served by or on behalf of the petitioner on the Attorney General or his duly authorized representative.

Timeline: Rule 5 of BRADEA

Rules requires within 7 days after the date of filling.

Stage 4;

Reply to the Petition (Originating Summons and Affidavit)

Rule 6 the reply shall be within 14 days from the date of service and shall accompany by Counter Affidavit.

What is Counter-Affidavit?

Is document filed by the respondents side to disputes facts stated in the Affidavit.

Contents

Name of the Court.
Case number
Citation of the Constitution
Citation of the Basic Rights Duties Enforcement Act
Citation of the Basic Rights Duties Rules
The Provision that alleged to be violated as it show in the Affidavit by the Petitioner
Name of the Petitioner
Name of the Respondents
Title of the Document (Counter Affidavit)
Facts that are Disputed
Date
Verification Clause
Date of Verification
Attestation Clause
Presentation for Filling
Drawer Address
Drawee Address

DRAFTING REPLY (COUNTER AFFIDAVIT) IN OPPOSING THE AFFIDAVIT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC TANZANIA

(MAIN REGISTRY)

AT DAR-ES-SAALAM

MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL CAUSE NO. ______ OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA 1977AS AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME

AND

IN THE MATTER OF BASIC RIGHTS AND DUTIES ENFORCEMENT ACT

[CAP. 3 R.E. 2002]

AND

IN THE MATTER OF BASIC RIGHTS AND DUTIES ENFORCEMENT

(PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE) RULES, 2014

AND

IN THE MATTER OF A PETITION TO CHALLENGE THE PROVISION OF SECTION 20 (1) (b) OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION STUDENTS’ LOAN BOARD ACT

CAP. 178 AS AMENDED BY THE WRITTEN LAWS (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) (NO.3 ) ACT ,2016 FOR BEING UNCOSTITUTIONAL

BETWEEN

SHUKURU MLWAFU…………………………………………………………….PETITIONER

VERSUS

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL…………………………………………….….1^ST RESPONDENT

HIGHER EDUCATION STUDENTS LOAN BOARD………….…..………2^ND RESPONDENT

JOINTLY COUNTER AFFIDAVIT BY THE 1^ST AND 2^ND RESPONDENT

WE, ……………………………….AND……………………………., an Adult, Male, Christian and resident of Dodoma DO HEREBY TAKE OATH and STATE the following:-

That, I am Petitioner in this Petition and thus conversant with the facts I am about to depose hereunder.

That, ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

That, …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

That, …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

That, ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Dated at Dar es Salaam this ____________ day of __________________ 2017,

________________

1^ST RESPONDENT

________________

2^ND RESPONDENT

VERIFICATION

WE, ………………………., the RESPONDENTS herein do hereby VERIFY that all what is stated in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, AND 5, hereinabove is true to the best of OUR knowledge.

Verified at Dar-es-salaam this ___________ day of __________________2017,

__________________

1^ST RESPONDENT

__________________

1^ST RESPONDENT

Sworn at Dar-es-salaam by the said ………

who is known to me personally/identified

to me by _______________________________ _________________

the latter being known to me personally DEPONENT

this______ day of ___________2017.

BEFORE ME:

Name: ________________________

Address: ______________________

Signature: _____________________

Designation: ____________________

Sworn at Dar-es-salaam by the said ………

who is known to me personally/identified

to me by _______________________________ _________________

the latter being known to me personally DEPONENT

this______ day of ___________2017.

BEFORE ME:

Name: ________________________

Address: ______________________

Signature: _____________________

Designation: ____________________

Presented for filing this ____________day of _____________________, 2017,

_______________________

REGISTRY OFFICER

DRAWN AND FILED GRATIS BY;

OFFICE OF SOLICITOR GENERAL

COPY TO BE SERVED UPON

THE PETITIONER

HEARING

WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT OF PETITION

IN THE MATTER OF BASIC RIGHTS AND DUTIES ENFORCEMENT

(PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE) RULES, 2014

AND

IN THE MATTER OF A PETITION TO CHALLENGE THE PROVISION OF SECTION 20 (1) (b) OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION STUDENTS’ LOAN BOARD ACT

CAP. 178 AS AMENDED BY THE WRITTEN LAWS (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) (NO.3 ) ACT ,2016 FOR BEING UNCOSTITUTIONAL

BETWEEN

SHUKURU MLWAFU…………………………………………………………….PETITIONER

VERSUS

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL…………………………………………….….1^ST RESPONDENT

HIGHER EDUCATION STUDENTS LOAN BOARD………….…..………2^ND RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION.

(Pursuant to order of Judge ____________________ dated ___ 2026

INTRODUCTION (FACTS)
YOUR LORDSHIP,

This is written submission in Support of the Petition, where the Petitioner filed originating Summons and Affidavit seeking the following orders:

An order proclaiming that all sea ports established within Tanzania Zanzibar fall within the exclusive mandate of the Government of United Republic of Tanzania;

An order proclaiming that the TPA is the proper Union entity to manage all established Courts within Tanzania Zanzibar including those specified under the First Schedule to the Zanzibar Port Corporation Act, 1997;

An order proclaiming that the enactment of Zanzibar Port Corporation Act, 1997 contravened article 64(3), 64(4) and 64(5) of the Constitution;
An order proclaiming that under the provision of article 64(5) of the Constitution, the Zanzibar Port Act, 1997 is invalid;
Orders directing the respondent to institute urgent and necessary legal measures to immediately take over the operation of all seaports within Tanzania Zanzibar and vest them under the Management and Control of the United Republic of Tanzania through TPA and or any other designated entity;
Orders that Parties bear their own costs because the Petitioner advances jurisdiction on Constitutionalism, Separation of powers and rule of law.

ISSUES

At the hearing the following issues were framed:-

Whether or not _____________________________________________________
Whether or not ______________________________________________________
Whether____________________________________________________________

ANALYSIS OF THE STATEMENT OF FACTS, ISSUES AND THE LAW.

ISSUE NO. 1

Whether or not__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

YOUR LORDSHIP, to answer this question would require evidence of one of three things.____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
YOUR LORDSHIP let us begin by exploring the first alternative_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
YOUR LORDSHIP, the Constitution of United Republic of Tanzania article 108(2)_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Citing the decision of the Court of Appeal in Salim O. Kabora vs Tanzania Electrical Electricity Supply Co. Ltd & Others Civil Appeal 55 of 2014 [2020] TZCA 1812 ( 7 October 2020)

YOUR LORDSHIP, Also in supporting the above cited case, as well as the case of Rev. Christopher Mtikila vs Attorney General [1995] TLR 31, the Petitioner held the view that ________________________

ISSUE NO. 2

Whether or not_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

YOUR LORDSHIP_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

ISSUE NO. 3

___________________________________________________________________

The humble pray that the petitioner Application be allowed and granted the order as PRAYED.

Dated at Moshi this _________Day of _______ 2026.

________________

PETITIONER

________________

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER

Presented for filling this _________Day of _________ 2026

__________________

REGISTRY OFFICER

DRAWN AND FILED GRATIS BY;

Legal and Human Rights Centre,

Legal Aid Clinic, Justice Mwalusanya House

Kinondoni Biafra, Isere Street, House No. 660,

P. O. Box 79633,

Dar es Salaam

www.humanrights.or.tz

COPY TO BE SERVED UPON;

THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

ATTORNEY GENERAL’S CHAMBERS,

DAR-ES-SALAAM

WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN OPPOSING THE SUBMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF BASIC RIGHTS AND DUTIES ENFORCEMENT

(PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE) RULES, 2014

AND

IN THE MATTER OF A PETITION TO CHALLENGE THE PROVISION OF SECTION 20 (1) (b) OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION STUDENTS’ LOAN BOARD ACT

CAP. 178 AS AMENDED BY THE WRITTEN LAWS (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) (NO.3 ) ACT ,2016 FOR BEING UNCOSTITUTIONAL

BETWEEN

SHUKURU MLWAFU…………………………………………………………….PETITIONER

VERSUS

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL…………………………………………….….1^ST RESPONDENT

HIGHER EDUCATION STUDENTS LOAN BOARD………….…..………2^ND RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN OPPOSING OF THE PETITION.

(Pursuant to an orders of Hon. Judge __________ dated _____ day of _____ 2026)

FACTS

After the Petitioner filed his application praying to this Honorable Court several orders, we manage to file counter Affidavit in opposing to his application. The court order the hearing to be disposed by way of written submission.

ISSUES
Whether __________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

Whether __________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

Whether __________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

ANALYSIS OF STATEMENTS OF FACTS, ISSUES AND THE LAW IN OPPOSING THE PETITION
Issue No 1

Whether________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

YOUR LORDSHIP ____________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

YOUR LORDSHIP, guided by provision of Section _______ of ____________________

ISSUE NO. 2

Whether or not_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

YOUR LORDSHIP_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

ISSUE NO. 3

___________________________________________________________________

Dated at Moshi this _________Day of _______ 2026.

________________

1^ST RESPONDENT

________________

1^ST RESPONDENT

Presented for filling this _________Day of _________ 2026

__________________

REGISTRY OFFICER

DRAWN AND FILED GRATIS BY;

OFFICE OF SOLICITOR GENERAL

COPY TO BE SERVED UPON

THE PETITIONER

REJOINDER SUBMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF BASIC RIGHTS AND DUTIES ENFORCEMENT

(PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE) RULES, 2014

AND

IN THE MATTER OF A PETITION TO CHALLENGE THE PROVISION OF SECTION 20 (1) (b) OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION STUDENTS’ LOAN BOARD ACT

CAP. 178 AS AMENDED BY THE WRITTEN LAWS (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) (NO.3 ) ACT ,2016 FOR BEING UNCOSTITUTIONAL

BETWEEN

SHUKURU MLWAFU…………………………………………………………….PETITIONER

VERSUS

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL…………………………………………….….1^ST RESPONDENT

HIGHER EDUCATION STUDENTS LOAN BOARD………….…..………2^ND RESPONDENT

REJOINDER SUBMISSION

(Pursuant to order of Judge ____________________ dated ___ 2026

INTRODUCTION (FACTS)
YOUR LORDSHIP,

This is REJOINDER in Support of the Petition, where the Petitioner filed originating Summons and Affidavit seeking the following orders:

ISSUES

At the hearing the following issues were framed:-

Whether or not _____________________________________________________
Whether or not ______________________________________________________
Whether____________________________________________________________
ANALYSIS OF THE STATEMENT OF FACTS, ISSUES AND THE LAW.

ISSUE NO. 1

Whether or not__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

YOUR LORDSHIP, to answer this question would require evidence of one of three things.____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
YOUR LORDSHIP let us begin by exploring the first alternative_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
YOUR LORDSHIP, the Constitution of United Republic of Tanzania article 108(2)_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Citing the decision of the Court of Appeal in Salim O. Kabora vs Tanzania Electrical Electricity Supply Co. Ltd & Others Civil Appeal 55 of 2014 [2020] TZCA 1812 ( 7 October 2020)

YOUR LORDSHIP, also in supporting the above cited case, as well as the case of Rev. Christopher Mtikila vs Attorney General [1995] TLR 31, the Petitioner held the view that ________________________

ISSUE NO. 2

Whether or not_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

YOUR LORDSHIP_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

ISSUE NO. 3

___________________________________________________________________

The humble pray that the petitioner Application be allowed and granted the order as PRAYED.

Dated at Moshi this _________Day of _______ 2026.

________________

PETITIONER

________________

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER

Presented for filling this _________Day of _________ 2026

__________________

REGISTRY OFFICER

DRAWN AND FILED GRATIS BY;

Legal and Human Rights Centre,

Legal Aid Clinic, Justice Mwalusanya House

Kinondoni Biafra, Isere Street, House No. 660,

P. O. Box 79633,

Dar es Salaam

www.humanrights.or.tz

COPY TO BE SERVED UPON;

THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

ATTORNEY GENERAL’S CHAMBERS,

DAR-ES-SALAAM

PART TWO

OTHER CONSTITUTION ISSUES

Recall the definition of Constitution Litigation

Constitutional Litigation – involves cases relating to the violation of basic rights and duties and cases relating to other Constitutional issues. Other constitutional issues are those issues that are not covered from article 12 to 29 which sets out the basic rights and duties.

What amounts to Constitutional Issues- are those cases that relate with interpretation of Constitution and Union matters.[1] The Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania established the SPECIAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT to deal with other constitutional cases. Read Article 125 of CAP 2. Reads as follows:

“There is hereby established the special Constitutional court of the United Republic of whose Jurisdiction, Constitution and procedure shall be as stipulated in the provision of Articles 126 and 128 of this Constitution”

LAWS GOVERNING THE SPECIAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

The Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania [Cap 2 R.E 2010]
The Constitution of Zanzibar 1984 [Edition 2010]
The Judicature and Application of Laws Act [Cap 358 R.E 2023]
The Government Proceedings Act [Cap 5 R.E 2023]
The Office of Attorney General Discharge of Duties Act [ 268 R.E 2023]
The Government Proceedings Act, Act No.3 of 2010 of Zanzibar
The Attorney General’s Chambers (Discharge of Duties) Act No. 6 of 2013

COMPOSITION OF THE SPECIAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

ARTICLE 127 SUB-ARTICLE 1

The Special Constitutional Court shall consist of members of whom one half shall be appointed by the Government of the United Republic and the other half shall be appointed by the Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar.

JURISDICTION THE SPECIAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

Interpretation of the Provision of the Constitution
The Question of Union between Tanganyika and Zanzibar -Articles of Union
The Disputes between the Government of the United Republic and Revolutionary of Zanzibar
The court act conciliatory body, the decision is final and conclusively you cannot appeal to the Court of Appeal.

In the case of Odero Charles Odero (Supra) the court insists three conditions to be fulfilled as per article 126(1) of the Constitution;

Firstly, there must be a dispute involving the interpretation or implementation of the Constitution and not any other dispute;

Secondly, the dispute must be referred to the Special Constitutional court by an aggrieved party;

Thirdly; The aggrieved party must either the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania or Revolutionary Government

INSTITUTION OF PETITION TO THE SPECIAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

Article 128, sub-article 4 says that:

Parliament may enact legislation providing for the election of the Chairman of the Special Constitutional Court, the procedure for the submission of disputes to the Court, the procedure for the hearing of disputes and the procedure for the transmission of the decisions of the Court to the Governments:

Provided that where any matter is referred to the Special Constitutional Court before the enactment of the law referred to in this sub article, the matter will be heard and decided in accordance with the procedures to be decided upon by the Court itself before hearing the matter, or if members of the Court fail to agree on such procedure, then the matter shall be heard and decided in accordance with the procedure to be decided upon by the Government of the Untied Republic in collaboration with the Revolution Government of Zanzibar.””

As matter of Practice, the procedure governing the institution of the Constitutional case in the SPECIAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT.

STEP NO.1 PREPARATION OF THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS

The necessary documents are; Originating Summons, supported by the Affidavit. The Contents of the Originating Summons

Name of the Court
Nature of the Case
Parties to the case
Title of the Document [ORIGINATING SUMMONS]
Enabling section and provision of the Constitution
Opening Statement
Orders.
The grounds upon which redress is sought. [See section 6 (c) of the BRADEA]
The specific Section in Part III of Chapter one of the Constitution which are the basis of the petition]
Particular of the facts, but not the evidence to prove such facts, relied on:
Date and Place where the Signature of the Registrar will be endorsed
Presentation Date:
Drawer Address
Drawee Address and service upon

DRAFTING ORIGINATING SUMMONS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA

SPECIAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

AT________________________

MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL CAUSE NO __________ 2026

JOSEPH NDUMI ……………………………………………………………. PETITIONER

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TANZANIA …………………………….1^ST RESPONDENT

ATTORNWY GENERAL OF ZANZIBAR …………………………….2^ND RESPONDENT

ORIGINATING SUMMONS

(Made under 126 (1), 108 (2) and section 2 (3) of the Judicature Application of Laws Act [Cap. 358 R.E. 2023])

LET THE PARTIES CONCERNED, JOSEPH NDUMI appear before the Honourable Judge _____________ sitting in chambers on the ____________, day of ___________ 2023, at 09:00 O’clock in the forenoon or soon the after on the hearing of the Petition on the part of the Petitioner, that this Honourable Court may be pleased to declare that;

An order proclaiming that all sea ports established within Tanzania Zanzibar fall within the exclusive mandate of the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania;
An order proclaiming that the TPA is the proper union entity to manage all established Ports within Tanzania Zanzibar including those specified under the First schedule to the Zanzibar Port Corporation Act, 1997;
An order proclaiming that the enactment of Zanzibar Port Corporation Act, 1997 contravened article 64(3), 64(4) and 64(5) of the Constitution;
An order proclaiming that under the provision of article 64(5) of the Constitution, the Zanzibar Port Act, 1997 is Invalid;
Order directing the respondent to institute urgent and necessary legal measures to immediately take over the operation of all sea ports within Tanzania Zanzibar and vest them under the management and Control the United Republic of Tanzania through TPA and or any other designated entity;
Orders that parties bear own costs because the petition advances jurisprudence on Constitutional Separation of powers, and rule of law.

THIS ORIGINATING SUMMONS has been taken out on the grounds and reasons set forth in the Affidavit of JOSEPH NDUMI which is annexed thereto and on any further grounds and reasons to be adduced at the Hearing.

Given under my Hand and Seal of the Court this ______ day of _________ 2026

_____________

REGISTRAR

Presented for filling this ______ day of ______ 2026

___________________

REGISTRY OFFICER

DRAWN AND FILED BY

MANDELA MZIRAY (ADVOCATE)

GEMSTONE ATTORNEY

MOSHI

KILIMANJARO

COPY TO BE SERVED UPON

THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA
THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ZANZIBAR.

AFFIDAVIT

Contents of Affidavit in Supporting of originating Summons

Name of the Court
Case Number and nature of the case
Name of the Petitioner
Name of the Respondents
Title of the Document [AFFIDAVIT]
Paragraph that shows the chronological facts of
The Date and Signature of the Petitioner
Verification
Date of Verification
Attestation clause
Date of Presentation
Drawer Address
Drawee Address

DRAFTING AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORTED OF ORIGINATING SUMMONS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA

(SPECIAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT)

AT ___________________

MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL CAUSE __________ 2026

JOSEPH NDUMI ……………………………………………………………. PETITIONER

VERSUS

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TANZANIA ………………………………1^ST RESPONDENT

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ZANZIBAR ……………………………… 2^ND RESPONDENT

JOINT AFFIDAVIT

We _______________ and _______________ resident of Tanzania and Zanzibar, Christian do hereby take OATH and STATE as follows:-

That _______________________________________________
That _______________________________________________
That _______________________________________________
That _______________________________________________
That _______________________________________________
That _______________________________________________

Dated at Dar es Salaam this _____ day of _____ 2026

________________

1^st Respondent

________________

2^nd RESPONDENT

VERIFICATION

We ______________ and _____________ the Respondents herein do hereby VERIFY that all what is stated in paragraphs 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 hereinabove is true to the best of our knowledge.

Verified at ___________ this _____ day ______ 2026

________________

1^st Respondent

________________

2^nd Respondent

Sworn at ______ by the Said

Who is known to me personally /

Identified to me by ___________ ___________

The Latter being known to me DEPONENT

Personally this ___ day of ___ 2026.

BEFORE ME:

Name: __________________________________

Address: ________________________________

Signature: ______________________________

Designation: ____________________________

Sworn at ______ by the Said

Who is known to me personally /

Identified to me by ___________ ______________

The Latter being known to me DEPONENT

Personally this ___ day of ___ 2026.

BEFORE ME:

Name: __________________________________

Address: ________________________________

Signature: ______________________________

Designation: ____________________________

Presented for filling this _____ day of — 2026

____________

REGISTRY OFFICER

DRAWN AND FILED BY

THE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA
THE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ZANZIBAR

COPY TO BE SERVED UPON

THE PETITIONER.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA

(SPECIAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT)

AT __________________

MISCELANIOUS CIVIL CAUSE NO. _____ 2026

JOSEPH NDUMI ………………………………………………………………… PETITIONER

VERSUS

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA …………………………………………………………………………….. 1^st RESPONDENT

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ZANZIBAR ………………………………. 2^nd RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION.

(Pursuant to order of Judge ____________________ dated ___ 2026

INTRODUCTION (FACTS)
YOUR LORDSHIP,

This is written submission in Support of the Petition, where the Petitioner filed originating Summons and Affidavit seeking the following orders:

An order proclaiming that all sea ports established within Tanzania Zanzibar fall within the exclusive mandate of the Government of United Republic of Tanzania;

An order proclaiming that the enactment of Zanzibar Port Corporation Act, 1997 contravened article 64(3), 64(4) and 64(5) of the Constitution;
An order proclaiming that under the provision of article 64(5) of the Constitution, the Zanzibar Port Act, 1997 is invalid;
Orders directing the respondent to institute urgent and necessary legal measures to immediately take over the operation of all seaports within Tanzania Zanzibar and vest them under the Management and Control of the United Republic of Tanzania through TPA and or any other designated entity;
Orders that Parties bear their own costs because the Petitioner advances jurisdiction on Constitutionalism, Separation of powers and rule of law.

ISSUES

At the hearing the following issues were framed:-

Whether or not _____________________________________________________
Whether or not ______________________________________________________
Whether____________________________________________________________

ANALYSIS OF THE STATEMENT OF FACTS, ISSUES AND THE LAW.

ISSUE NO. 1

Whether or not__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

YOUR LORDSHIP, to answer this question would require evidence of one of three things.____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
YOUR LORDSHIP let us begin by exploring the first alternative_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
YOUR LORDSHIP, the Constitution of United Republic of Tanzania article 108(2)_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Citing the decision of the Court of Appeal in Salim O. Kabora vs Tanzania Electrical Electricity Supply Co. Ltd & Others Civil Appeal 55 of 2014 [2020] TZCA 1812 ( 7 October 2020)

YOUR LORDSHIP, Also in supporting the above cited case, as well as the case of Rev. Christopher Mtikila vs Attorney General [1995] TLR 31, the Petitioner held the view that ________________________

ISSUE NO. 2

Whether or not_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

YOUR LORDSHIP_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

ISSUE NO. 3

___________________________________________________________________

The humble pray that the petitioner Application be allowed and granted the order as PRAYED.

Dated at Moshi this _________Day of _______ 2026.

________________

PETITIONER

________________

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER

Presented for filling this _________Day of _________ 2026

__________________

REGISTRY OFFICER

DRAWN AND FILED BY

MANDELA MZIRAY (ADVOCATE)

GEMSTONE ATTORNEYS

P. O. BOX ____________

MOSHI

COPIES TO BE SERVED UPON

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ZANZIBAR

REPLY WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN OPPOSING THE PETITION.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA

(SPECIAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT)

AT ____________________

MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. _______ 2026

JOSEPH NOUMI …………………………………………………………….. PETITIONER

VERSUS

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA …………………………………………………………… 1^ST RESPONDENT

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ZANZIBAR ………………………………2^ND RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN OPPOSING OF THE PETITION.

(Pursuant to an orders of Hon. Judge __________ dated _____ day of _____ 2026)

FACTS

ISSUES
Whether __________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

Whether __________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

Whether __________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

ANALYSIS OF STATEMENTS OF FACTS, ISSUES AND THE LAW IN OPPOSING THE PETITION
Issue No 1

Whether________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

YOUR LORDSHIP ____________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

YOUR LORDSHIP, guided by provision of Section _______ of ____________________

ISSUE NO. 2

Whether or not_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

YOUR LORDSHIP_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

ISSUE NO. 3

___________________________________________________________________

Dated at Moshi this _________Day of _______ 2026.

________________

1^ST RESPONDENT

________________

1^ST RESPONDENT

Presented for filling this _________Day of _________ 2026

__________________

REGISTRY OFFICER

DRAWN AND FILED BY

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ZANZIBAR

COPIES TO BE SERVED UPON

MANDELA MZIRAY (ADVOCATE)

GEMSTONE ATTORNEYS

P. O. BOX ____________

MOSHI

REJOINDER SUBMISSION IF ANY

The Court allow the Petitioner to rejoin /Reply on what was stated in the Written submission by the Respondents if he wishes to do so.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA

(SPECIAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT)

AT __________________

MISCELANIOUS CIVIL CAUSE NO. _____ 2026

JOSEPH NDUMI ………………………………………………………………… PETITIONER

VERSUS

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA …………………………………………………………………………….. 1^st RESPONDENT

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ZANZIBAR ………………………………. 2^nd RESPONDENT

REJOINDER SUBMISSION

(Pursuant to order of Judge ____________________ dated ___ 2026

INTRODUCTION (FACTS)
YOUR LORDSHIP,

This is REJOINDER in Support of the Petition, where the Petitioner filed originating Summons and Affidavit seeking the following orders:

ISSUES

At the hearing the following issues were framed:-

Whether or not _____________________________________________________
Whether or not ______________________________________________________
Whether____________________________________________________________
ANALYSIS OF THE STATEMENT OF FACTS, ISSUES AND THE LAW.

ISSUE NO. 1

Whether or not__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

YOUR LORDSHIP, to answer this question would require evidence of one of three things.____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
YOUR LORDSHIP let us begin by exploring the first alternative_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
YOUR LORDSHIP, the Constitution of United Republic of Tanzania article 108(2)_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Citing the decision of the Court of Appeal in Salim O. Kabora vs Tanzania Electrical Electricity Supply Co. Ltd & Others Civil Appeal 55 of 2014 [2020] TZCA 1812 ( 7 October 2020)

YOUR LORDSHIP, also in supporting the above cited case, as well as the case of Rev. Christopher Mtikila vs Attorney General [1995] TLR 31, the Petitioner held the view that ________________________

ISSUE NO. 2

Whether or not_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

YOUR LORDSHIP_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

ISSUE NO. 3

___________________________________________________________________

The humble pray that the petitioner Application be allowed and granted the order as PRAYED.

Dated at Moshi this _________Day of _______ 2026.

________________

PETITIONER

________________

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER

Presented for filling this _________Day of _________ 2026

__________________

REGISTRY OFFICER

DRAWN AND FILED BY

MANDELA MZIRAY (ADVOCATE)

GEMSTONE ATTORNEYS

P. O. BOX ____________

MOSHI

COPIES TO BE SERVED UPON

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ZANZIBAR

Constitutional Litigation in Tanzania

[1] Odero Charles Odero vs Attorney General of Tanzania & Another (Misc Civil cause No 15 of 2023) [2024] TZHC 698 (4 March 2024)