Court name
High Court of Tanzania

Mwalimu Paul John Mhozya vs Attorney General (No.2) () [1995] TZHC 16 (27 July 1995);

Law report citations
1996 TLR 229 (TZHC)
Media neutral citation
[1995] TZHC 16
Coram
Samatta, J.K.

Samatta JK: B
In this matter the plaintiff seeks various reliefs including the following declarations:
   1.   The Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania (the Constitution) was violated by Zanzibar joining an organisation known as the Organisation of C Islamic Conference (OIC);
   2.   His Excellency Ali Hassan Mwinyi, the President of the United Republic, is guilty of permitting or enabling that violation to take place and is, therefore, personally answerable for the violation; and D
   3.   His Excellency Ali Hassan Mwinyi's continued exercise of presidential powers is unconstitutional as well as a potential danger to the well-being of the United Republic and its citizens.
At the close of the plaintiff's case, Mr Mwidunda, counsel for the respondent, submitted E that the respondent had no case to answer, and invited me to dismiss the suit. He elected to call no evidence.
The plaintiff's pleading is in a form of plaint. It seemed to me that the matter should have been brought by way of a petition but, bearing in mind that the plaintiff was unrepresented, I was not inclined to drive him off the judgment seat on that ground. F Accordingly, I allowed him to prosecute the case as filed. Only one witness gave evidence-the plaintiff himself. His evidence can, I think, be summarised as follows. He is a teacher by profession, teaching at Kibasila Secondary School. He has a Master's Degree in Physics. He told the court that sometime in 1992 he learnt through the press G that Zanzibar had joined the OIC. He knows as a fact that later President Mwinyi announced to the nation on Radio Tanzania that Zanzibar had joined the OIC and that she had done so in her own economic interests. The plaintiff then produced, without any objection from Mr Mwidunda, three letters: one from the then Attorney-General to the H Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation (Exh P1); the second is a letter from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation to the Attorney General (Exh P2), responding to Exh P1; and the third one is a letter from the I Attorney-General to the Prime Minister and first Vice-President (Exh P3). In view of the importance of their con-

tents in determining the issues before me, I propose, at the risk of making this ruling A unduly long, to quote them in extenso.
All the three letters are in Swahili. Exh P1 reads as follows:
   `Ndugu Ahmed Hassan Diria (Mb)
   Waziri wa Mambo ya Nje na B
   Ushirikiano wa Kimataifa,
   DAR ES SALAAM
   KUH: MAOMBI YA ZANZIBAR KUJIUNGA
   NA UMOJA WA ORGANISATION OF C
   ISLAMIC CONFERENCE
   Zanzibar imewasilisha kwenye Chama (CCM) maombi yake ya kutaka kujiunga na Umoja uitwao-the Organisation of Islamic Conference. Nimetakiwa na Ofisi ya Waziri Mkuu nitoe ushauri juu ya ombi hilo.
   2. Kwa vile suala la Mambo ya Nje ya Ushirikiano wa Kimataifa ni suala la Muungano ambalo D unasimamia, nitashukuru kama utanipatia maoni ya Wizara yake juu ya ombi hilo. Natakiwa nitoe ushaur huo haraka ili hatimaye uamuzi ufanywe.
   (Signed)
   D Z Lubuva E
   MWANASHERIA MKUU WA SERIKALI'
   Exh P2 is in following terms:
   `Nd D Z Lubuva, Mb,
   Mwanasheria Mkuu wa Serikali,
   DAR ES SALAAM F
   KUH: MAOMBI YA ZANZIBAR KUJIUNGA NA
   UMOJA WA ORGANIZATION OF THE
   ISLAMIC CONFERENCE
   Kutokana na waraka wako wenye somo lililotajwa hapo juu uliopelekwa CCM, uchambuzi wa G muundo wa chombo hicho unaonekana wazi kuwa ulipoanza ulikuwa na misimamo yenye maana ya kujikinga kiuchumi na kisiasa.
   Wanachama wa mwanzo waanzilishi walikuwa Pakistan na Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Hizo ni nchi zenye katiba ambayo ni wazi kabisa imefungwa kwenye misingi ya dini ya Kiislam kutokana na Katiba zao. H
   Ni kweli kuna utatanishi juu ya chombo hiki, kama inavyoeleweka, na kutokana na jina lake-au lengo lake ni kusambaza Uislam au kuwasilimisha watu kwa hila-au kwa nguvu. Wanachama wake sio wote wenye kuamini dini ya Kiislam, au ndivyo Katiba inavyosema. Maelezo hayo hayana misingi ya ukweli. I
   Katika jumla ya wanachama wake asilimia 90 ya mataifa na wanachama wanaofuata mtindo wa circularism na siyo itikadi ya kidini.

   Mataifa yote ya Kiarabu kama Egypt na Indonesia wana Katiba ya secular-state inayooanisha dini A zote ikiwa pamoja na nchi za Ghuba, Sudan na Afrika ya Kaskazini zote zinafuata mitindo ya dunia kwenye katiba zao. Hivi sasa wenye katiba ya kujifunga na udini kuwa ni policy ni Iran; Pakistan na Saudi Arabia. Zilizobaki kama Comoros na Mauritania wanajiita Jamhuri za Kiislam bila kufuata B taratibu na sheria za Kiislam, wala kwenye katiba zao hazionyeshi hivyo na taratibu za utawala wao ni wa kidunia na kufuata sheria za madola.
   Kwa kuendeleza somo hilo kwa ajili ya uchambuzi zaidi ili tuelewe mwenendo wa jumuia hiyo, kuna haja ya kueleza kuwa Equatorial Guinea, Lebanon, Cameroon na Uganda Madola hayo yote yana C katiba inayofuata mtindo wa kimataifa. Hata hivyo kuangalia tu jina kunaleta tafsiri isiyo na uchambuzi kwa sababu nchi zingine asilimia kubwa si wanaofuata dini ya Kiislam wamekuwa wanachama, ama kwa ajili ya historia au kwa mengine. D
   Umoja unaonyesha kuwa unashughulikia zaidi wanachama wake kama ilivyo taratibu za Umoja wowote ule duniani.
   UPIGAJI KURA
   Wanaopiga kura ni wanachama, lakini umoja unatoa mwanya kwa `OBSERVER' na dola inapata faida zote za maendeleo bila ya kuwa mwanachama kamili. Kwa kifupi, ni mwanachama ndiye E anayefaidikazaidi; na kati ya Mwangalizi na asiye mwanachama, misaada hutolewa zaidi kwa mwanachama.
   TANZANIA
   Tanzania ni Muungano wa dola mbili yenye katiba moja, ambayo inatamka wazi kuwa Tanzania ni nchi isiyo na dini ila wananchi wake wanazo dini zao. Ina maana kidunia Tanzania Secular F state-isiyovutiwa na dini ya mtu. Pia katika Katiba Tanzania imeruhusu wananchi wake kuweza kufanya ibada zao wanazoamini bila ya bugudha. Bali Tanzania ni Jamhuri ya Muungano iliyounganisha dola mbili, bila ya kujali ukubwa wala uchumi: lakini katiba imeweka wazi vyombo vya G Muungano, yaani moja katika uzito wa jamhuri ni siasa ya mambo ya nje ambacho ni chombo kimoja katika vyombo vinavyosimamiwa na Katiba ya Muungano.
   Unapojiunga kuwa mwanachama atakayewakilishwa kwenye vikao vya unongozi wa juu atakuwa Rais wa Jamhuri. Bendera itakayopepea itakuwa ni ile ya Tanzania. Siasa itakayoendeshwa itakuwa H iliyounganishwa kikatiba, yaani siasa ya kimataifa. Kutokana na maelekezo hayo, ushaur wetu ni kama ufuatao.
   (a)   Kama ni lazima kuwa katika Umoja wa Organisation of the Islamic Conference, tufuatilie msimamo wa Nigeria na Mozambique ambao walikuwa observer; na pia kwa sababu Tanzania imefaidika kupatiwa misaada kutokana IOC kwa ajili ya mradi wa Kibiti-Lindi bila ya I kuwa mwanachama.

A    (b)   Indonesia si mwanachama kutokana na katiba yake, lakini walianza kujiunga kama permanent participant na hadi leo Dunia inaamini wanachama, lakini katiba ilibidi waitafutie mbinu ya kisheria na wakatokana na msimamo huo. Pengine Tanzania tungeendeleza uchunguzi juu ya mtindo huo.
   (c)   Tanzania inawesa ikawa associate member na itakuwa non voting (sic) member bila ya B kupinga katiba ya Jamhuri ya Muungano.
   Kwa kumaliza na kwa kukubali kuwa Katiba ni yetu inayotuongoza-uamuzi wetu ni lazima kuangalia maslahi ya Taifa na kuepusha fikra potofu miongoni mwa wananchi wa dola yetu. Hivyo kwa Zanzibar C kujiunga peekee ni suala la katiba. Ufumbuzi ni kama nilivyoelezea hapo juu.
   (Signed) A Hassan Diria
   WAZIRI WA MAMBO YA NJE NA USHIRIKIANO WA
   KIMATAIFA'
Exh P3 reads as follows: D
   `Nd J S Malecela, (Mb)
   Waziri Mkuu na Makumu wa
   Kwanza wa Rais,
   DODOMA. E
   KUH: MAOMBI YA ZANZIBAR KUJIUNGA NA `THE
   ORGANISATION OF ISLAMIC CONFERENCE'
   1. Kwa Dokezo lako la tarehe 21 Septemba, 1991 ulinitaka nifanye uchambuzi wa kisheria na nikupe maoni yangu.
   2. Nimefanya uchambuzi wa Katiba ya `Organisation' hiyo pamoja na Katiba ya Jamhuri ya Muungano F wa Tanzania. Kutokana na uchambuzi huo, maoni na ushauri wangu ni kama ifuatavyo:
   (i)   Chimbuko la Umoja huu ni Mkutano wa viongozi wa Nchi na Serikali uliofanyika Rabat, Morocco, 1969.
   (ii)   Ni `Inter-Governmental Organisation' ambayo wanachama wake ni nchi za Kiislam. G
   (iii)   Mikutano yake ni ya `Heads of State' na mingine ni ya `Foreign Affairs Ministers' wa nchi za Kiislamu.
   (iv)   Madhumuni yake Kimsingi ni ya Kidini na mengine ni ya Kisiasa. Article II Ibara ya 1 lengo ni `to promote Islamic Solidarity among member States' yanayofuata toka Ibara ya 2 hadi 7 Kidini H na mengine ni ya Kisiasa.
   3. Kwa kuzingatia misingi ya malengo na shabaha ya Umoja huu kama Katiba yao inavyooanisha kwa upande wa Tanzania kuwa mambo ya msingi ya kuzingatia kabla ya kufikia uamuzi juu ya Zanzibar kujiunga. Kwanza kwa jinsi Muungano ulivyo Kikatiba, Tanzania ni nchi moja na ni Jamhuri I yha Muungano-One State and a United Sovereign Republic. Katika hali hiyo:

   (i)   Ilivyokuwa uanachama wa Umoja huoni wa Dola, itakuwa ni kinyume cha Katiba kwa sehemu A moja ya Jamhuri kujiunga kama nchi na kuacha nyingine.
   (ii)   Pili, mambo ya uhusiano na nchi za Nje Kikatiba na Kimazoea ni mambo yanayoendeshwa Kimuungano (International Relations). B
   (iii)   Tatu, Siasa na sera ya nchi yetu Tanzania ni kwamba Serikali na Dola havina dini. Watu wake ndiyo waumini. Hivyo, wakati wote msimamo ni kutochanganya mambo ya Dola na Dini.
   (iv)   Kwa siasa yetu jinsi ilivyo, kujiunga na Umoja huo kama Dola inazusha maswali ya msingi. Mabadiliko ya msimamo kisiasa juu ya Dini na mfumo wa kuendesha shughuli kwa sehemu C moja ya Tanzania na kuacha nyingine.
   4. USHAURI
   Kwa kuzingatia mfumo wa siasa ya Tanzania na Katiba yake kama Nchi moja (One Sovereign State) tangu 1964 na tangu 1969 Umoja huo umekuwepo bila sisi kujiunga, nashauri: D
   (a)   Ni kinyume cha Katiba kwa Zanzibar kujiunga Katika Chombo ambacho wanachama wake ni dola za Kiislamu.
   (b)   Kama ni mwafaka na imeamuliwa na kukubalika ni Tanzania ndiyo inaweza kujiunga. Hii ni baada ya kubadili sera na Siasa yetu juu ya Dini na Dola. E
   (c)   Waziri wa Mambo ya Nje na Ushirkiano wa Kimataifa, naye kwa maelezo yake haoni ni sawa kufanya hivyo.
      --Nakala ya maoni yake imeambatanishwa.
   (d)   Nakubali ikiwa ni lazima, kama alivyoshauri Waziri wa Mambo ya Nje kutafuta njia ya kushirikiana katika mikutano ya OIC kwa misingi waliyowezakufanya nchi ambazo si za F Kiislam ingawa Katiba ya Umoja huo inataka hivyo (Islamic State).
   (e)   La busara kama ndiyo linakubaliwa na IOC ni kwa vyombo vya Waislamu kama vile BAKWATA, BALUKTA NK kujiunga na siyo Dola. Hiyo ndiyo ingekuwa njia sahihi isiyokiuka Katiba au Siasa ya nchi. Kwa jinsi iliivyoletwa, na kwa mfumo wa Kikatiba tulio nao sasa na siasa yetu G kwa maoni yangu ni suala nyeti ambalo uamuzi wake ukifanywa kwa pupa unaweza kutuletea hali ya vuragu.
   Nakurejeshea nakala ya Katiba ya OIC.
   D Z Lubuva, Mb H
   MWANASHERIA MKUU WA SERIKALI'
The plaintiff asserted that on December 17, 1992 the Hon Hassan Diria, the then Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation, admitted at a press conference that Zanzibar had joined the OIC. The plaintiff did not, however, say that he I was present at the press conference. When cross-examined by Mr Mwidunda, he

said that he came to learn that Zanzibar had joined the OIC when he read several A newspapers, including Motomoto and Daily News. No copy of the constitution of the OIC was produced before me. It is not disputed that the National Assembly of the United Republic formed a committee to probe Zanzibar's alleged membership of the OIC and B that that Committee's report was debated in the House. Essentially, this was the evidence laid before me. At the commencement of the trial the following issues were framed:
   1.   Whether Zanzibar joined the OIC.
C    2.   If the answer to the first issue is in the affirmative, was that action contrary to the provisions of s 1, 8(2), 19(2), 26(1) and 42(5) or any other provision of the Constitution the United Republic of Tanzania?
   3.   Did President Ali Hassan Mwinyi allow Zanzibar to join the OIC or did he in any way facilitate that step being taken? D
   4.   If the answer to Issue No 3 is in the negative, did President Ali Hassan Mwinyi condone Zanzibar's act of joining the OIC and, if he did, did that constitute a violation of any provision of the Constitution of the United Republic?
E    5.   Did President Ali Hassan Mwinyi omit to take remedial steps after Zanzibar joined the OIC? If the answer to question is in the affirmative, did the omission constitute a violation of any provision of the constitution of the United Republic?
   6.   If President Ali Hassan Mwinyi violated the Constitution of the United Republic F as alleged, do any or more of those violations make him unfit to continue occupying the office of President of the United Republic?
   7.   What reliefs, if any, are the parties entitled to? As already pointed out, at the close of the plaintiff's case Mr Mwidunda submitted that the plaintiff had made G out no case. The learned Senior State Attorney invited me to dismiss the case at that stage. The plaintiff, who, as already remarked, appeared in person, contended that the defendant has a case to answer. Mr Mwidunda contended, inter alia, that to establish a case to answer against the defendant the plaintiff H had to give or adduce evidence concerning, inter alia, what the OIC is, its objectives and juridical nature. According to the learned Senior State Attorney, the contents of Exhibits P1, P2 and P3 do not in any way support the averment that Zanzibar joined the OIC. Those letters, Mr Mwidunda submits, were no Imore than `consultative correspondence'. The plaintiff, on the other hand,

      submits that, to use his own words, "the fact that Zanzibar joined the OIC is a A fact of common knowledge for non-issues cannot occupy the Government and the parliament of the United Republic of Tanzania".
Can a defendant, at the close of a plaintiff's case submit in law that there is no case to B answer? Eighteen years ago, in Daikin Air Conditioning (EA) Ltd v Harvard University (1), I ventured to answer that question in the affirmative. I adhere to that view. A submission of no case to answer in a civil case stands on the same footing as a C submission of no case to answer in a criminal case, save that there is a difference in the standard of proof. What, then, is the test to be applied when such a submission is made? As I understand the law, when the dismissal of the plaintiff's case on the basis that no case has been made out is prayed for, the court should not ask itself whether the D evidence given and/or adduced by the plaintiff establishes what would finally be required to be established, but whether there is evidence upon which a court, applying its mind reasonably to such evidence, could or might (not should nor ought to) find for the plaintiff. The submission of no case to answer cannot be upheld if there is sufficient Eevidence on record on which a court might make a reasonable mistake and enter a judgment for the plaintiff. Whereas the test to be applied at the close of the defendant's case is what ought a reasonable court to do?, the one to be applied in determining the validity or otherwise of a submission of no case to answer is what might a reasonable F court do?: See Supreme Service Station (1969) (Pvt) Ltd v Fox and Goodridge (Pvt) Ltd (2). The latter test I have described is the one I must apply in determining Mr Mwidunda's submission in the matter now before me.
It is a general rule of law that all facts in issue and relevant facts must be established by G evidence, either oral or documentary. There are two exceptions to this rule: (1) facts judicially noticeable under s 59 of the Evidence Act, 1967 (the Act); and (2) facts admitted. Since the averment that Zanzibar has joined the OIC is not admitted by the H defendant, there is onus on the plaintiff to establish that fact to the degree required by law. Has he succeeded to do so? My answer is no. While there may exist a general belief among members of the public in the country that Zanzibar joined the organisation, that belief cannot in law constitute the basis for holding that the plaintiff has discharged his onus in this case. The general belief does not authorise a court of law to take judicial I notice of the

alleged fact under s 59 of the Act. The plaintiff had to place before this Court evidence A which demonstrated, to the degree I have endeavoured to explain, that Zanzibar did become a member of the OIC or from which that conclusion could reasonably be drawn. I have sympathetically examined the evidence laid before me and in the end I am of the B clear opinion that the plaintiff's evidence does not even begin to establish Zanzibar's membership of the OIC. The plaintiff has not, strangely, produced before this Court a copy of the constitution of the organisation. It is difficult to see how he believed that this Court could hold that Zanzibar became a member of the organisation without examining C the organisation's constitution. Be that as it may, the contents of Exh P1, P2 and P3 do not, in my considered opinion, establish a prima facie case that Zanzibar joined the organisation. Those letters reveal no more than the Government's efforts to find out whether Zanzibar joining the organisation would be constitutional. In my settled opinion, D there is no basis for acceding to the plaintiff's contention that he has made out a case on the first issue.
But assuming I am wrong in so holding, I ask myself whether there is enough evidence before this Court authorising me to call upon the defendant to answer the plaintiff's case E insofar as the third, fourth and fifth issues are concerned? Here, too, I have examined the evidence on record with much sympathy but in the end I feel compelled to answer the question in the negative. There is, in my opinion, no admissible evidence which reveals the role which the President played in Zanzibar joining the OIC, assuming she F did. The evidence which the plaintiff though established the President's role-radio and newspaper reports-is nothing but heresay evidence. Under s 62 of the Act that evidence was clearly inadmissible to establish the alleged role. At best, the plaintiff's evidence on G the third, fourth and fifth issues is speculative. A court of law cannot, even at the stage which the case before me has reached, make a finding on the basis of such evidence. The documentary evidence laid before me is not at all helpful to the plaintiff on the three issues.
For the reasons I have given, I am of opinion that Mr Mwidunda's submission that the H defendant has no case to answer must be upheld. Having reached that conclusion, I do not find it necessary to deal with Mr Mwidunda's other arguments concerning limits of this Court's power to give declaratory judgments.
The suit is dismissed with costs. I

A