← Legal Intelligence
July 15, 2024
Constitutional & Administrative Law
Decision: July 15, 2024
Steven Kitale Cleophace v. The Tanganyika Law Society, Executive Director of the Tanganyika Law Society, The Governing Council of the Tanganyika Law Society and The Hon. Attorney General
Leave to institute judicial review granted; interim injunction restraining AGM and election process declined.
Judge: A. Matuma, J.
In Steven Kitale Cleophace v. The Tanganyika Law Society, Executive Director of the Tanganyika Law Society, The Governing Council of the Tanganyika Law Society and The Hon. Attorney General, the High Court (Mwanza Sub-Registry) granted leave to file a judicial review application challenging the legality of the TLS election process and alleged denial of access to governing documents. The Court found that the applicant, a Governing Council member, had established sufficient interest and an arguable case concerning the nomination of electoral committee members and the increase of AGM registration fees. However, the Court declined to grant interim injunctive relief restraining the AGM and election process, holding that such relief should be sought within the substantive judicial review application. No order as to costs was made.
Facts
The applicant, a member of the Tanganyika Law Society (TLS) and its Governing Council representing the Lake Zone, sought leave to institute judicial review proceedings. He challenged the legality of the ongoing TLS election process, alleging irregular nomination of members of the Electoral Committee and Electoral Appeals Committee, and an unapproved increase of AGM registration fees from Tshs. 118,767 to Tshs. 200,000 for physical attendance.
The applicant contended that he had requested relevant Council documents to enable him to discharge his oversight responsibilities but was denied access. He sought leave to apply for orders of mandamus and certiorari, together with interim injunctive relief to restrain the AGM and election process pending determination of the intended judicial review.
Legal principle / holding
At the leave stage, the Court determines whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient interest, an arguable case, existence of a decision amenable to review, exhaustion of available remedies, timeliness, and good faith.
Where a statutory body's election process is governed by law, alleged irregularities in nomination of electoral committee members and procedural approval of fees may constitute matters amenable to judicial review.
Interim injunctive relief following grant of leave is discretionary and should ordinarily be sought within the substantive judicial review application unless exceptional circumstances justify immediate intervention.
Key issues
1. Whether the applicant had sufficient interest and locus standi to seek leave.
2. Whether an arguable case existed regarding the nomination of electoral committee members and the increase of AGM registration fees.
3. Whether the application was made in good faith.
4. Whether interim injunctive relief restraining the AGM and election process should be granted at the leave stage.
Ratio decidendi
The Court held that the applicant, as a member of the Governing Council with oversight responsibilities, had demonstrated sufficient interest and established an arguable case. The election process of TLS is governed by law, and allegations that committee members were nominated contrary to governing laws and that AGM fees were increased without due Council approval warranted judicial scrutiny.
However, the Court declined to grant interim injunctive relief restraining the AGM and election process. It reasoned that leave does not automatically compel filing of the substantive application and that interim relief should properly be sought within the filed judicial review application, where the presiding judge would be better positioned to assess the merits. In the circumstances, declining interim relief would not prejudice the applicant. No order as to costs was made.
Additional notes
This ruling followed a separate decision in the same matter dismissing preliminary objections. The Court directed that the substantive judicial review application be filed within fourteen days from the date of the ruling.
