_1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA 

AT DAR ES SALAAM
CIVIL CASE NO. 2 OF 2005
AUGUSTINE LYATONGA MREMA	APPLICANT
VERSUS

THE ATTORNEY

RULING

Mr. Augustino Lyatonga Mrema, was one of the Presidential candidates in the General Election which took place on 14/12/2005 The National Electroral Commission is to announce the result of the Presidential Candidates to day at 10 am. However, Mr. Mrema now the applicant is of the opinion that there had been some rigging in the recording of the votes he got from the voters in this country, that is to say the United Republic of Tanzania. He wants this court to restrain the National Electoral Commission from announcing the winning candidate in the presidential election.  In order that this court could do justice to the applicant it has been mo   d b chamber summons made Under Order XXVII rules 1 and 2 section 68 (e) and 95 of the Civil Procedure code, 1966
The Chamber summons which is supported by the affidavit of the applicant is divided into two parts, that of an exparte interim Order and Interpartes order. This ruling is in regard to the interim order exparte.

(1) | AfyaB | 5 votes
(2) | AfyaA | 3 votes
(3) | Kishumbundu Sec: | 2 votes
(4) | S/Msingi Wondo B | 1 vote
(5) | KNCU Murwia B | 3 votes
(6) | S/Msingi Kyaseni B | 2 votes
(7) | Kishumbundu Sec. B | 3 votes
(8) | S/Msingi Mwasi A | 2 votes

he is. It was further alleged that perhaps the rigged numbers of his votes might have been added to Mr. Kikwete's votes, who is now prouding of having 80.2% of the total votes.
Mr. Magesa learned coucel gave an example of Liberia where he said that an investigation was conducted on a complaint of one of the presidential candidate, before the announcement of the results were made, so the same could be done in this country. He so submitted.
Mr. Magesa, learned consel's submissions in regard to Liberia as an example was based on what he had been reading in the news paper, and on the same basis, I would say that in Liberia, the Presidential candidate was alleging to have worn the elections, so he needed the investigation as to the number of votes for the two contesting candidates to be recounted. That is distinguished from this application where Mr. Mrema is not alleging to have wonk in the general election, but he is of the opinion that due to the alleged rigging, he is recorded to have very few votes casted for him. Infact, he is shocked by that small number. However, that could be the reality without him knowing so.
Unfortunately, during his submission, the learned cousel wanted this court to rely on a photocopy of Forms 21 A, which itself is a secondary document. He never submitted the original from 21A for the inspection of the court. It might also be rigged.
On the basis of section 68(e) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1966 I don't see any reason at all, to make any interlocutory orders which is just and convenient under the
circumstances other than dismissing the application exparte as having no legs to stand with.
If the Charman of the National Electroral Commission has not yet announced the results, he should proceed to do the needful.
The chamber summons exparte is accordingly dismissed.

A.R. Manento 
JAJI KIONGOZ 
20/12/2005