Arusha. The High Court of Tanzania, Main Registry in Dodoma, has ordered a temporary suspension of the hearing of a judicial review application filed by the Registered Trustees of ACT-Wazalendo challenging the appointment of special seats MPs made by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
The proceedings in the ACT-Wazalendo case have been halted indefinitely following a revision application lodged at the Court of Appeal challenging the High Court’s decision granting the party leave to file the substantive judicial review application contesting the appointments.
The ruling was delivered on Wednesday, February 25, 2026, by Judge Griffin Mwakapeje after a preliminary objection raised by the respondents, who argued that the court lacks jurisdiction to proceed since the leave granted to file the application has been challenged at the Court of Appeal.
Judicial Review Case No. 705/2026 challenges the appointment of 115 special seats MPs, alleging that the nomination process did not comply with legal and constitutional principles.
The respondents were represented by a panel of three advocates led by Principal State Attorney Vivian Method, while the applicant was represented by advocate John Seka.
Before the substantive hearing commenced, the respondents informed the court that on January 30, 2026, they had received a revision application filed in the Court of Appeal by Juliana Shonza and seven others challenging the High Court’s December 30, 2025, decision granting leave to institute the main application.
Ms Method submitted that judicial review proceedings are instituted in two stages: first, seeking leave, and then filing the substantive application.
If such leave is quashed by the Court of Appeal, the entire substantive case would lack a legal basis.
In the main application, the Registered Trustees of ACT-Wazalendo sued INEC and the Attorney General (AG), seeking judicial review orders to quash the appointments.
The respondents urged the High Court to stay the proceedings to prevent a ruling that might later be overturned by the Court of Appeal.
They cited legal principles and precedents requiring a lower court to refrain from proceeding where the core issue is under appellate consideration.
According to the State attorneys, continuing with the case while the validity of the leave remains under challenge would amount to proceeding without confirmed jurisdiction.
ACT-Wazalendo’s arguments
Advocate Seka opposed the stay, arguing that no provision mandates automatic suspension of substantive proceedings merely because a revision application has been filed in the Court of Appeal.
He contended that the law imposes a six-month limitation period for filing judicial review applications, and that an indefinite stay could prejudice his client’s right to be heard within the statutory timeframe.
He further argued that the applicants for revision ought first to have sought a hearing before the High Court under the relevant rules instead of proceeding directly to the Court of Appeal.
He added that their failure to follow that procedure demonstrated an unwillingness to participate in the proceedings.
The court’s decision
In his ruling, the judge agreed with the State’s submissions, holding that the issue raised directly touches on the court’s jurisdiction to proceed with the substantive judicial review application.
He stated that it is a well-established principle that where the basis of a lower court’s jurisdiction is under challenge before a superior court, the lower court must await the higher court’s determination.
Proceeding in such circumstances, he said, would risk rendering a decision that could be nullified should the Court of Appeal reach a different conclusion regarding the validity of the leave granted.
The court noted that it had considered the applicant’s argument on the six-month limitation but found that it could not override the duty to first resolve the jurisdictional issue.
It also emphasised the need for consistency in judicial decisions, stating that judges of coordinate jurisdiction should avoid conflicting rulings unless compelling reasons exist.
Accordingly, the High Court ordered that Judicial Review Case No. 705/2026 be stayed pending the Court of Appeal’s determination of the revision application.
“Proceeding in such circumstances risks rendering decisions that may later be declared void,” the judge said.
Background
On December 30, 2025, the High Court, Main Registry Dodoma, granted ACT-Wazalendo leave to file a judicial review application challenging the appointment of special seats MPs.
In the October 29, 2025, General Election, INEC appointed 115 special seats MPs, with CCM securing 113 and the Civic United Front (CUF) two, while ACT-Wazalendo, which participated without a presidential candidate, secured none.
Following the appointments, ACT-Wazalendo filed an application for leave to challenge the decision announced publicly on November 7, 2025.
In Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 28632/2025, the party sought leave to apply for judicial review orders to quash INEC’s decision to exclude its members, whom it claims were eligible for nomination.
They also sought a declaration that Section 112 of the Presidential, Parliamentary, and Councillors Elections Act, 2024, did not apply to the circumstances of the case.
Judge Sedekia Kisanya, who heard the leave application, was satisfied that the applicant had met all legal requirements for the grant of leave to institute judicial review proceedings.
