The substantive case was filed at the High Court in Dar es Salaam by Chadema’s former deputy chairman, Said Issa Mohamed, alongside two members of the party’s Board of Trustees from Zanzibar, Ahmed Rashid Khamis and Maulida Anna Komu.
Dar es Salaam. The Court of Appeal has set aside a High Court order that barred opposition party Chadema from engaging in political activities.
The decision, which restores the party’s right to operate, was delivered on April 15, 2026, by a three-judge panel comprising Augustine Mwarija, Issa Maige and Abraham Mwampashi.
The ruling arose from review proceedings initiated by the Court of Appeal in relation to a dispute over the alleged unequal distribution of the party’s resources between mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar.
The substantive case was filed at the High Court in Dar es Salaam by Chadema’s former deputy chairman, Said Issa Mohamed, alongside two members of the party’s Board of Trustees from Zanzibar, Ahmed Rashid Khamis and Maulida Anna Komu.
The respondents were the party’s duly registered Board of Trustees and its Secretary General.
The applicants argued that there was an imbalance in the distribution of party assets and financial resources between Zanzibar and mainland Tanzania, contrary to the Political Parties Act and the party’s constitution.
They subsequently filed an interlocutory application seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from engaging in political activities or using party property pending determination of the main case.
On June 10, 2025, the High Court granted the application, issuing orders restraining the respondents from participating in political activities and from using party assets until the main suit is determined.
However, the Court of Appeal has overturned that decision after reviewing both the procedure and the interlocutory ruling of the High Court.
According to Chadema advocate Dickson Matata, the appellate court found that the High Court erred in proceeding with the injunction application after the respondents’ counsel had withdrawn from the proceedings.
The Court held that this denied the respondents a fair hearing, as they were not present during the continuation of the proceedings.
“The injunction was therefore invalid and is hereby set aside,” advocate Matata quoted the Court of Appeal as ruling.
