Arusha. The High Court of Tanzania, Morogoro Sub-Registry, has granted an application by former police officer Corporal Said Pazzi seeking leave to file judicial review proceedings out of time to challenge his dismissal from the police force.
The officer was dismissed after being found guilty in disciplinary proceedings conducted before a military tribunal involving corruption-related allegations.
The ruling was delivered on Friday, June 12, 2026, by Judge Stephen Magoiga, who heard the application filed by Pazzi against the Inspector General of Police (IGP), the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs, and the Attorney General.
In his application, Mr Pazzi asked the court to extend the time for filing judicial review proceedings challenging the decisions of the IGP and the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs, which upheld his dismissal following a military tribunal ruling linking him to disciplinary offences related to corruption.
According to court documents, the applicant was dismissed from service in 2023 after the Deputy Commissioner of Police received the findings of the military tribunal, which found him guilty in a disciplinary matter.
Dissatisfied with the decision, he appealed to the IGP, who, on March 14, 2024, upheld his dismissal.
He later appealed to the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs, who, on March 5 2025, informed him that the IGP’s decision was final within the Police Force appeals system, although he remained entitled to seek redress through other legal avenues.
Through his advocate, Mr Pazzi argued that his right to be heard was violated during both the disciplinary proceedings and the appeal process.
He claimed that he had not been allowed to submit some of his defence documents and that he had not been personally served with either the findings or the decision of the case as required by law.
He further alleged that the IGP determined his appeal without granting him an opportunity to be heard and that he only became aware of the outcome after being removed from the police payroll system.
His lawyer told the court that the violation of the right to be heard constituted a fundamental legal issue capable of justifying an extension of time to file judicial review proceedings even after the ordinary six-month limitation period had expired.
The government opposed the application, arguing that the applicant had fully participated in the disciplinary proceedings and that the case records showed he cross-examined witnesses and signed various procedural documents during the hearing.
The respondents maintained that the claim of being denied the right to be heard was unfounded because the applicant had been allowed to defend himself and present his arguments before the disciplinary authority.
They also insisted that the applicant had delayed for an unreasonably long period before filing the application and had failed to provide satisfactory explanations for the entire period of delay.
Court ruling
In his ruling, Judge Magoiga said that after reviewing the military tribunal records, affidavits from both parties cited legal authorities and submissions presented before the court, the key issue for determination was whether the applicant had established sufficient grounds for the extension of time to file judicial review proceedings.
After analysing the arguments from both sides, the High Court agreed with the government on several issues, finding that the applicant had fully participated in the disciplinary proceedings.
The court noted that the records showed Mr Pazzi attended the hearings throughout the proceedings, cross-examined 11 prosecution witnesses, and also testified in his own defence.
The court therefore held that the applicant could not claim that he had been denied an opportunity to defend himself or denied a fair hearing during the disciplinary proceedings.
The court also found that the documents the applicant sought to tender as evidence were not rejected outright but were challenged on legal grounds and later disallowed as exhibits because of identified deficiencies.
Judge Magoiga explained that the rejection of evidence after it has been submitted is not equivalent to denying a party the opportunity to present evidence.
The court also dismissed the applicant’s argument that the IGP was obliged to summon him for a hearing during the appeal stage.
Under the Police Force Service Regulations, the IGP may determine an appeal based on available records without summoning the appellant unless there is fresh evidence requiring presentation.
However, the court agreed with the applicant’s argument regarding failure to personally serve him with the findings and decision of the disciplinary case.
Judge Magoiga stated that Regulation C.7 (5) of the 1995 Police Force Service Regulations clearly requires that the findings and decision of a disciplinary case must be personally served on the officer concerned.
In the matter before the court, the government explained that copies of the ruling and proceedings had been kept at the office of the Morogoro Regional Police Commander for the applicant to collect.
The court, however, held that the procedure did not comply with legal requirements because the responsibility to serve the documents rested with the relevant authorities and not with the applicant to collect them himself.
The court failed to personally serve the applicant with the proceedings and decision as required by law, Judge Magoiga said in his ruling.
The court added that the breach of the law raised an important legal issue capable of justifying an extension of time for filing judicial review proceedings.
The judge further observed that where an applicant demonstrates illegality or violation of the law, it is not always necessary to account in detail for every single day of delay before being granted additional time.
Consequently, the High Court exercised its discretion to allow the application and granted Mr Pazzi leave to file judicial review proceedings in accordance with the law.
