Arusha. The High Court in Kigoma Sub-Registry has dismissed review applications filed by the Kigoma Urban Constituency Returning Officer and the Attorney General (AG), who had sought to overturn the court’s ruling of December 16, 2025, delivered in Election Case No. 28949/2025.
In their applications, the applicants asked the court to set aside an order issued alongside the ruling, arguing that there had been an error relating to the provision of legal aid to the complainants in the original petition.
The applications were filed under Order XLII Rule 1(1)(b) and Section 88(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act, relying on alleged new evidence that was not available during the original hearing.
In the election petition, complainants Johary Kabourou, Loum Mwitu, Pendo Kombolela, and Luma Akilimali challenged the election victory of Kigoma Urban MP, Mr Clayton Chipando, popularly known as Baba Levo, CCM.
The ruling dismissing the review applications was delivered on Monday, May 4, 2026, by Justice Projestus Kahyoza, who presided over the matter.
After hearing submissions from both sides, the judge ruled that the alleged new evidence was insufficient, questionable, and did not meet the legal threshold required for a review.
Basis of the application
During the initial hearing of the election petition, preliminary objections were raised, including claims that the first to fourth respondents had failed to deposit security for costs as required under Section 140(2), (3), (5) and (7) of the Elections Act for the President, Members of Parliament and Councillors, 2024.
After hearing both parties, the court dismissed the objections after finding that the petitioners were beneficiaries of legal aid and were therefore exempt from paying security for costs.
However, in the review application, the applicants argued that new evidence had emerged indicating that the Tanganyika Law Society (TLS) had provided legal aid without valid registration at the time, rendering the earlier ruling defective.
During the hearing, the applicants were represented by Principal State Attorney Vivian Method and Senior State Attorney George Kalenda, while the first to fourth respondents were represented by advocate John Seka.
Kigoma Urban MP Baba Levo was represented by advocates Daniel Rumenyela and Emmanuel Msasa.
Supporting the application, State Attorney Method cited provisions empowering courts to review decisions under Order XLII Rule 1(1)(b) and Section 88(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.
She also relied on precedents, including Emmanuel Jagero & three others v Multimodal Transport Africa Ltd and Review Application No. 2/2012, which outline conditions governing judicial review powers.
He argued that the key ground for review was new evidence suggesting TLS had provided legal aid without proper authority in Case No. 28949/2025.
He further cited Mohamed Enterprises (T) Ltd v Thanh Hoa Ltd Co, submitting that discovery of new evidence is a valid ground for review.
According to him, the applicants only became aware later that TLS lacked valid authority to provide legal aid until receiving clarification from relevant authorities after judgment had been delivered.
He said the Ministry of Constitution and Legal Affairs had confirmed that TLS was registered to provide legal aid from April 29, 2019 for three years, expiring on April 28, 2022.
He argued that this information demonstrated that the exemption from security for costs had been wrongly granted, and that the clarification was obtained after the judgment.
The applicants therefore asked the court to set aside the ruling of December 16, 2025.
The respondents opposed the application, arguing that the alleged new evidence was unreliable and not supported by valid registration documentation.
Advocate Seka submitted that the TLS registration certificate (LAP-2019-0003) was not part of the court record in either the election petition or the review application.
He argued that the document relied upon was merely a legal aid certificate and not proof of TLS registration, while the Ministry’s letter dated February 12, 2026 amounted to internal correspondence that did not directly involve TLS.
He further contended that TLS has historically provided legal aid services since its establishment in 1954 under its governing legislation.
He urged the court to dismiss the application, warning that granting it would create a precedent undermining TLS’s legal authority to provide legal aid.
Court ruling
In his ruling, Justice Kahyoza held that for a review application to succeed, three conditions must be satisfied: the existence of new and important evidence, credibility and non-doubtfulness of the evidence, and proof that the evidence could not have been obtained earlier despite due diligence.
The court found that due diligence had not been exercised, noting that the inquiry letter was written on December 12, 2025, despite the case having been filed on November 14, 2025, and hearings having already concluded.
The judge held that such steps should have been taken earlier, demonstrating a lack of diligence on the part of the applicants.
On the credibility of the evidence, the court ruled that a letter alone was insufficient without the actual TLS registration certificate.
He emphasised that the burden of proof lay with the applicants, and their failure to produce the certificate rendered the evidence doubtful.
Even under the civil standard of proof on a balance of probabilities, the judge said, the evidence still fell short.
The court further noted that review proceedings are not intended to re-litigate issues that could have been raised earlier, but only to correct clear errors or consider genuinely new evidence that could not reasonably have been obtained in time.
“In my view, such steps should have been taken immediately after the case was filed. Given that the Attorney General’s office is involved, it is clear the relevant institutions had sufficient opportunity to identify the issue early and act accordingly,” said Justice Kahyoza.
“These are government offices operating within the same administrative structure. It is difficult to understand how such evidence could not have been obtained earlier,” he added.
He concluded that the legal requirements for review had not been met and, accordingly, dismissed the applications for lack of merit.
