MWALIMU PAUL JOHN MHOZYA v ATTORNEY GENERAL (No. 2) 1996 TLR 229 (HC)

MWALIMU PAUL JOHN MHOZYA v ATTORNEY GENERAL (No. 2) 1996 TLR 229 (HC)

Court High Court of Tanzania - Dar es Salaam

Judge Samatta JK

G

CIVIL CASE No. 206 OF 1993

July 27, 1995 H

Flynote

Civil Practice and Procedure - No case to answer - Standard of proof upon a

submission of `No Case to Answer' in a civil case - Standard of proof in civil and

criminal cases distinguished

Civil Practice and Procedure - No Case to Answer - Dismissal of suit on the basis of a

I submission of `No Case to Answer' - Test to be applied by the Court in reaching

decision

1996 TLR p230

-Headnote

The plaintiff sought from the High Court the following orders of declaration: (a) that

the A Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania had been violated by

Zanzibar joining the Organisation of Islamic Conference (the 'OIC'); that President

Ali Hassan Mwinyi of the United Republic of Tanzania was guilty of permitting or

enabling the said violation to take place; and (c) that President Ali Hassan Mwinyi's

continued exercise of presidential B powers was unconstitutional and a potential

danger to the country and its citizens. At the close of the plaintiff's case, counsel for

the defendant submitted that there was no case to answer and invited the court to

dismiss the case; he chose to call no evidence:

Held:

C (i) In a civil case a defendant can, at the close of the plaintiff's case, submit

that there is no case to answer, and a submission of no case to answer in a civil case

stands on the same footing as a submission of no case to answer in a criminal case,

save that there is a difference in the standard of proof;

D (ii) When 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 evidence 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 or ought to) find for the plaintiff;

E (iii) A submission of no case to answer cannot be upheld if there is

sufficient evidence on record upon which a court might make a reasonable mistake

and enter judgment for the plaintiff;

(iv) The test to be applied at the close of the defendant's case is `what

ought a reasonable court to do', while the test to be applied in determining a

submission of no case to answer is `what might a reasonable court do'; F

(v) As the claim that Zanzibar joined the OIC is not admitted by the

defendant, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that fact and he has not

succeeded to do that; the exhibits he has tendered in court only show the

Government's efforts to find out whether Zanzibar joining the OIC would be

constitutional; G

(vi) The general belief among members of the public that Zanzibar had

joined the OIC is not a basis for holding that the plaintiff had discharged his burden

in this case;

(vii) No admissible evidence has been given to show the role which the

President played in Zanzibar joining the OIC; the evidence of radio and newspaper

reports H brought by the plaintiff is hearsay and inadmissible under s 62 of the

Evidence Act, 1967.

Case Information

Suit dismissed with costs.

Cases referred to:

I 1. Daikin Air Conditioning (E.A.) Ltd v Harvard University [1996] TLR 1

1996 TLR p230

SAMATTA JK

A 2. Supreme Service Station (1969) (Pvt) Ltd v Fox and Goodridge (Pvt)

Ltd, 1971 (1) RLR 1

The appelant appeared in person.

P. Mwidunda, for the respondent.

[zJDz]Judgment

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 Cooperation

(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-

1996 TLR p232

SAMATTA JK

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.

1996 TLR p233

SAMATTA JK

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.

1996 TLR p234

SAMATTA JK

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:

1996 TLR p235

SAMATTA JK

(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

1996 TLR p236

SAMATTA JK

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 I more than `consultative correspondence'.

The plaintiff, on the other hand,

1996 TLR p237

SAMATTA JK

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 E evidence 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

1996 TLR p238

SAMATTA JK

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

1996 TLR p239

A