Arusha. The Court of Appeal of Tanzania has dismissed an appeal lodged by lawyer Steven Cleophace challenging a High Court decision that struck out his judicial review case against the Tanganyika Law Society (TLS) over its election process and 2024 Annual General Meeting (AGM).
The appellate court upheld the High Court ruling after finding that the lower court had acted properly in striking out the matter despite the respondents consenting to the substantive application.
The judgment was delivered on Tuesday, May 12, 2026, by a panel of three judges comprising Lugano Mwandambo, the presiding judge, alongside Panterine Kente and Leila Mgonya.
The dispute stemmed from preparations for the 2024 TLS AGM and elections conducted by the society’s secretariat.
Following the preparations, lawyer Steven Kitale, a TLS member and former Lake Zone representative in the society’s Governing Council, raised two complaints.
First, he argued that the appointment of members to the Election Committee and Election Appeals Committee had not complied with legal procedures governing the process.
Secondly, he challenged what he described as an irregular increase in AGM registration fees from Sh118,767 to Sh200,000 for physical attendance, arguing that the increment had not been approved by the Governing Council.
Application for leave
Based on those complaints, lawyer Kitale and other Governing Council members sought documents and records from the TLS Executive Director relating to the disputed decisions, but received no response.
Instead, he was advised to forward the matter to the TLS president, but he also failed to receive feedback.
Following the conduct of TLS leaders regarding the complaints, lawyer Kitale filed a case at the High Court seeking leave to institute judicial review proceedings.
In Miscellaneous Application No. 16018 of 2024, lawyer Kitale sought permission to file judicial review proceedings seeking orders to quash TLS decisions and compel the society to fulfil its statutory obligations.
Alongside the application for leave, he also filed an application for temporary injunction orders to stop the AGM, elections, and activities of the election committees pending hearing and determination of the matter.
Main case
In a ruling delivered by Judge Athuman Matuma, the High Court rejected the application for temporary orders seeking to halt the AGM, elections, and activities of the Election and Appeals Committees.
However, the court granted leave to file the substantive judicial review case, leading to the filing of Miscellaneous Application No. 17558 of 2024 against TLS, the TLS Executive Director, the TLS Governing Council, and the Attorney General.
During the hearing before Judge Wilbert Chuma, lawyers representing the respondents agreed with lawyer Kitale’s application and the reliefs sought, except on the issue of costs.
Despite the respondents consenting to the application, Judge Chuma, in a ruling delivered on April 3, 2025, struck out the case, citing, among other reasons, the absence of a decision capable of being subjected to judicial review.
Judge Chuma also held that the matter had been filed prematurely and that the conditions required for granting the orders sought had not been satisfied.
Appeal
Dissatisfied with the ruling, lawyer Kitale appealed to the Court of Appeal, advancing two grounds against the High Court decision.
First, he argued that Judge Chuma erred in law by denying him the right to a fair hearing, contrary to constitutional guarantees of equal hearing of parties.
Secondly, he argued that the judge acted unlawfully by determining the competence of the matter despite the respondents having consented to the application, thereby violating principles governing adversarial proceedings.
During the hearing of the appeal, the respondents opposed the case and urged the court to dismiss it.
Among other arguments, they maintained that a High Court judge has a duty to ensure applications before the court are legally sound, even where parties are in agreement.
Court decision
In its judgment, the Court of Appeal held that courts cannot issue orders merely because parties have consented.
The judges stated that even where one party agrees to an application filed by the opposing side, the court retains a duty to assess whether the orders sought comply with the law, principles of justice, and public interest.
“The consent of litigants cannot remove the obligation of a judge to exercise judicial authority and conduct legal analysis before making a decision,” the judges stated in the ruling.
In its analysis, the court rejected the argument that the appellant had been denied a hearing, noting that all parties had been given an opportunity to file affidavits, present arguments, and offer explanations before the court.
The judges further warned that granting all unopposed applications without scrutiny could weaken the justice system and create room for abuse of court processes.
“Considering the reasons we have given above, this court finds that this appeal lacks legal merit and is therefore dismissed without any order as to costs,” the judges concluded.
