INTRODUCTION

Judicial review is central in the effort to instil and promote a sense of the rule law in the
administrative system of the government in Tanzania .it is founded on the rule of law. Since
public powers are conferred by they are also always subject to law. The legality of the decision
of public authorities is always a matter subject to the jurisdiction of the courts. The extent of a
public authority’s powers and whether such an authority has observed proper procedure in
discharging its mandated functions are always under the supervisory jurisdiction of the courts.1

Judicial review is the institutional capacity of courts of law to determine the constitutional
validity of actions taken by either coordinate or inferior branches of government. It is an
outgrowth of efforts to limit the powers of those authorized to interpret both sacred and secular
texts, and to ensure that laws, and the acts of those empowered to enforce them, will be
consistent with the basic values of a society and its basic governing structures. Enabling
government while at the same time protecting against the potential abuse of governmental power
is an age-old, and continuing, dilemma of a constitutional democracies. In modern democracies,
however, judicial review presents its own dilemma how to rationalize limits on majority rule.
This recognition of the inherent tensions between democracy and the rule of law, is often referred
to at least in the American context as the ‘counter-majoritarian difficulty.’ But as judicial review
and constitution have expanded to a large number of countries, and with the rise of supranational
courts, attempts to achieve a workable and legitimate balance that respects both democratic
values and individual rights are now a worldwide phenomenon.2

MAIN BODY

The following are necessary criterion for the issuance of judicial review remedies in Tanzania

Illegality is a very broad ground for review and covers a wide range of possible abuses by public
authorities. When public authorities act outside of their legal authority, they are acting ultra
vires; this is a central principle of administrative law. The most straightforward illustration of the
principle of ultra vires is where a public authority has undertaken activities for which they have
no legal authority. And this can divided into the followings.3
1
Mushi E.G (2014) Administrative law of Tanzania
2
Grossman J.B (2001) International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences.
3
Hunter N.D (2018) The Law of Emergences.
 Discretion In other circumstances, a public authority has the discretion to act. Frequently claims
for judicial review arise out of a public authority's exercise of discretion within their statutory
powers. Many legislative provisions confer discretion upon a public authority.

The essential element of a discretionary power is choice, whereas a duty removes discretion and
takes away choice. Certain statute laws contain a number of criteria that an authority should take
account of when exercising its discretion

A decision can be overturned on the ground of irrationality if it is so unreasonable that no

In addition, a decision can be overturned if a public authority has acted in a way which is
incompatible with human rights that are given effect by the Human Rights Act 1998. There is
one exception to this, though: if the public authority is merely doing what parliament told it to
do, then it is not acting unlawfully even if it does act incompatibly with one of those rights. A
judge cannot quash or declare unlawful a government decision merely on the basis that the judge
would have made a different decision, or that the decision was wrong.

Procedural Impropriety. The correct procedure for making a decision must be observed for it
others Procedural review thus examines the process by which a decision has been reached.
Certain procedures are contained within the Statute conferring the powers on the public
authority, others are found within common law doctrine of natural justice.

Enforcement of the writ of Mandamus (Penalty):When an order of mandamus has been issued
and directed to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board or person upon whom the writ has been
personally served and such tribunal, corporation, board, or person has without just excuse,
refused or neglected to obey the same, the court may, upon motion, impose a fine to that person
or authority. In case of persistence in a refusal or disobedience, the court may order the party to
be imprisoned until the writ is obeyed, or charge and convict him or her for the contempt of
court, and may make any orders necessary and proper for the complete enforcement of the writ.
For example the case of JOHN MWOMBEKI BYOMBALIRWA v. THE REGIONAL
COMMISSIONER AND REGIONAL POLICE COMMANDER, BUKOBA,4 The applicant was
4
1986 TLR 73 (HC)
one of suspected economic saboteurs. He was arrested in March 1983 and a substantial part of
his property valued at Shs.11,675,680/= was seized (excluding beer and Konyagi). He was
charged with hoarding property but the special tribunal acquitted him and ordered that the seized
property be restored to the applicant. The government officials involved did not comply with the
order hence the application for an order of mandamus to issue. In this case, all the required
grounds for issuance of an order of mandamus were met by the applicant, thus Mwalusanya J.,
held that the applicant deserved an immediate order for redress because the injustice already
done to him was substantial and unwarranted

Quashing Order means to certify; this quashing order formerly was known as Certiorari is so
named as in its original Latin form it required the Judges of any inferior court of record to certify
the record of any matter and to send it to the Superior Court to be examined. It is an order issued
by the High Court to an inferior court or any authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions to investigate and decide the legality and validity of the order passed by it.It is mainly
applied to the decision of public bodies acting under statutory authority and has the effects of
invalidating the ultra vires decision of the administrative body concerned.

On Quashing Order the court does not substitute its own decisions. It simply invalidates the
original decision which may result in the matter back to the original to consider afresh. However
the decision of the body after reconsidering the matter will be reached in the right of the court so
that if a decision quashed for procedural error, the correct procedure as indicated by the court
must be followed when the matter is considered afresh.

prohibition an order requiring a body to cease proceedings because it lacks jurisdiction or has
exercised its jurisdiction improperly. It is the appropriate remedy when the proceedings are only
partly completed, and it prohibits the body from proceeding to make a decision

If an application for judicial review under common law principles is successful, the court
may, in its discretion, grant a remedy to solve the problem.

Declaration a formal statement by the court that an action or decision is unlawful. It is not
contempt of court to ignore or defy a declaration, but the government will ordinarily comply with
the terms of a declaration
Injunction an order that something be done or some action taken a mandatory injunction or that
an administrative body cease or refrain from doing an act a prohibitive or negative injunction.
Most injunctions in administrative law are prohibitive in form. Unlike a declaration, an
injunction has a coercive effect, and it is contempt of court to disobey an injunction.

CONCLUSION

Judicial review ensures that the state and their public authorities by their actions do not dispose
individuals of their human rights for whatever reasons. It is abundantly clear that judicial review
of administrative action is indeed the primary vehicle for the protection of human rights and the
human rights.

REFERENCE

BOOKS
A.J.Harding public duties and public law (1989) CLARENDON PRESS.OXFORD New
york

E.G.Mushi administrative law (2014) mzumbe university publishers Mzumbe Tanzania

J.Beaton&M.H.Mathew Administrative law (1998) Oxford University press New York

CASES

JOHN MWOMBEKI BYOMBALIRWA v. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER AND