| Case Number | REFERENCE NO. 10 OF 2016 |
| Summary | This is a Reference filed on 5th December 2016 by MIS Quick Telecommunications Services, a Tanzanian registered Partnership (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Applicant’) owned by four Tanzanians, namely James Alfred Korosso, Elizabeth Alfred Korosso, Nicolas Obwana and Benedict Korosso, trading between Moshi, Himo and Arusha Townships, in the United Republic of Tanzania. The Applicant is represented by Mr. James Alfred Korosso and its address of service is: Quick Telecommunications Services, CIO The Managing Director, Mr. James Alfred Korosso, The Respondent is the Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania who is sued in his capacity as the Principal Legal Advisor of the United Republic of Tanzania. His address of service for the purposes of this Reference is given as Attorney General’s Chambers, 20 Kivukoni Road, P.O. Box 9050, 11492 DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA The Reference was amended on 13th January 2017 and on 20th July 2018. |
| Respondent | THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA |
| Complainant | MIS QUICK TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES (Represented by James Alfred Korosso) |
| Date filed | December 5, 2016 |
| Countries | Tanzania |
| Keyword | |
| Treaty Article |
First Instance Judgment
| Verdict | The Applicant has prayed for declarations and orders as reproduced hereinabove in the Applicant's Case. Considering our findings on Issue No. 3 that the Respondent did not violate the principles enshrined in Articles 6(d) and 7(2), the declarations sought in (a), (b) and (c) are not granted. With regard to prayer (d) that the Court declares unprofessional and null the Ruling of the Judges Ethics Committee delivered on 41h October 2016 and prayer (i), we decline to grant the prayers as per our findings on Issue NO.3. Concerning prayer (e) related to the termination of office, prayer (g) on retirement benefits for Judge Fatuma H. Massengi, Judge M.S. Mbarouk, Judge B.M. Mmila, Judge A.G. Mwarija, Judge H.T. Songoro and Hon. K. Revocati, and prayer Ul on the leave to appeal Judgment in Land Case No. 19 of 2012, the Court declines to grant the said prayers for they falls outside its statutory jurisdiction. As regards prayers (f), (h), (I), (m), (n) and (0) on damages, interest thereto and other payments claimed by the Applicant against the Respondent and his agents, these prayers are not granted because no violation of the Treaty was found against the Respondent. On the costs of the Reference, Rule 111(1) of the Court's Rules provides that "Costs in any proceedings shall follow the event unless the Court shall for good reasons otherwise order." The Applicant has failed in all its claims against the Respondent and shall therefore bear costs of the Reference. Given our findings, Reference No. 10 of 2016 is dismissed with costs to the Respondent. It is so ordered. |
| PDF document | Download the decision as PDF |
| Date delivered | July 3, 2019 |
| Quorum |
Appeal Judgment
| Verdict | |
| PDF document | |
| Date delivered | |
| Quorum |