Dar es Salaam/Arusha. A legal dispute has emerged over the status of a court order barring opposition party Chadema from conducting political activities, following conflicting interpretations by the party’s leadership and lawyers representing the plaintiffs who obtained the order.
The disagreement follows a public statement by Chadema’s chief legal counsel, Dr Rugemeleza Nshala, who said the injunction was valid for only six months and has since expired.
His position was echoed by the party’s vice-chairperson (Mainland), Mr John Heche, who said the expiry of the order cleared the way for Chadema to resume political activities, with plans to announce a schedule of meetings soon.
However, the interpretation by Dr Nshala and Mr Heche has been challenged by Mr Shaban Marijani, the lead counsel for the plaintiffs, who said Chadema’s leadership was misreading the court order.
The dispute centres on a High Court injunction issued in Dar es Salaam on June 10, 2025, barring Chadema from conducting political activities and using party property pending the determination of a case involving a dispute over the distribution of party assets.
The civil case, No. 8323 of 2025, was filed at the High Court, Dar es Salaam Registry, by former Chadema vice-chairperson Mr Said Issa Mohamed and two members of the party’s Board of Trustees from Zanzibar—Mr Ahmed Rashid Khamis and Ms Maulida Anna Komu.
The defendants in the case, which is being heard by Judge Hamidu Mwanga, are Chadema’s Registered Board of Trustees and the party’s secretary-general.
On Friday, January 23, 2026, Chadema, through Dr Nshala, issued a statement asserting that the injunction had lapsed after six months.
“We wish to inform all Tanzanians and friends of democracy that the injunction barring Chadema from conducting political activities ended on, exactly six months from the date it was issued by Judge Hamidu Mwanga on June 10, 2025,” the statement read.
Dr Nshala cited Rule 3 of Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code (Cap 33, Revised Edition 2023), which provides that an injunction issued under Rule 1 or Rule 2 may not exceed six months unless extended by the court.
The statement further referenced a Court of Appeal decision in African Trophy Hunting Ltd vs Attorney General and four others (Civil Appeal No. 25 of 1997) [1998] TZCA 11, which held that an injunction may be granted for an initial six months and extended, but should not exceed a total period of one year.
"By December 10, 2025, neither Mr Said Issa Mohamed, Mr Ahmed Rashid Khamis nor Ms Maulida Anna Komu had applied for an extension of the injunction,” the statement said.
“This means that, in law, the injunction against Chadema’s political activities lapsed by operation of the law.”
Speaking to journalists in Arusha on Friday, Mr Heche said the party was ready to resume its operations.
“We are ready to hold meetings, reopen party offices and carry out other political activities,” he said.
However, Mr Marijani dismissed the party’s interpretation, saying the court order clearly stated that the injunction would remain in force until the substantive case is determined.
He said any disagreement over the meaning or application of the order should be addressed through formal court procedures.
“The interpretation of Rule 3 of Order 37 is a legal matter that requires judicial determination. While some precedents support that view, others do not,” he said.
“If they believe the injunction has lapsed, the proper course is to raise the matter before the court rather than debate it in the media.”
Register to begin your journey to our premium contentSubscribe for full access to premium content
