Arusha. The High Court Musoma Sub Registry has granted former teacher Kasoga Mangire 30 days to file an application for judicial review challenging the decision of the President of the United Republic of Tanzania to endorse his dismissal from employment.
That decision was delivered on Friday, January 30, 2026, by Justice Marlin Komba after agreeing to Kasoga’s request for extension of time to file the case, with the ruling uploaded on the Judiciary website.
In the application, the respondents are the Teachers Service Commission of Tanzania (TSC) secretary general, the President, and the Attorney General.
The Court said the applicant has raised serious points of law that deserve to be heard in a judicial review case in which he asks the Court to quash the dismissal decision and order relevant authorities to perform their duties according to law.
Justice Komba said the Court is satisfied that the applicant’s claims, particularly regarding denial of the right to be heard, have a legal basis requiring in-depth examination, thus allowing the review application to be filed from the judgment date.
Mr Kasoga, who has been a teacher for 25 years, was dismissed for alleged forgery of a Form Four certificate.
Basis of application
The applicant claimed he was unfairly dismissed by TSC, a decision later confirmed by the second respondent (the President).
The origin of his dismissal was allegations that he forged the certificate, yet he studied at Kasulu Teachers College in 1994, was employed and worked as a teacher for 25 years, received professional certificates from various schools and colleges, and was regarded as a competent teacher.
In January 2022, he received a disciplinary notice from TSC and was given 15 days to respond to it.
Essentially, the applicant’s complaints appear in paragraphs five and six of his affidavit that he was not properly heard, could not present his evidence, and was denied the right to cross-examine any witness.
Court records show he submitted his certificate and verification from NECTA (National Examinations Council of Tanzania), but the first and second respondents disregarded his evidence.
In their joint affidavit responses, the respondents said the applicant was correctly dismissed because he was found with two Form Four certificates bearing the same number but different results.
They further told the Court that he was heard through TSC and given time to challenge the allegations.
In the application determined through written submissions, the applicant was represented by Advocate Baraka Werema, while the respondents were represented by State Attorney Neema Mwaipyana.
Counsel for the applicant argued that the intended application raises critical legal questions on the right to be heard in disciplinary proceedings and the disregard of authenticated documentary evidence.
He explained that the applicant was not given a fair hearing, was denied the opportunity to confront relied evidence, and that the offence of forgery was not proved to the required standard since no criminal case was filed against him.
He told the Court that the application was filed within the statutory six months from the date the cause of action first arose.
He said the President’s final decision was received by the applicant on May 9, 2024, and the initial judicial review application was filed on September 23, 2024, but on June 17, 2025, it was found incomplete because the President was not listed as a respondent, prompting an order to include him.
Counsel added that another reason for the application is that the applicant, who was employed in Bunda District, attempted to challenge the decision administratively without success, and to support this point, he cited previous Court of Appeal decisions.
Court decision
Justice Komba said after reviewing arguments from both sides, the Court focused on whether the applicant met the legal criteria for leave to file a judicial review application.
He said the Court found that complaints regarding violation of the right to be heard, procedural fairness, and disregard of evidence are serious legal issues warranting detailed examination in the main application.
He also said the Court was satisfied that the applicant has direct interest in the matter.
