PARTIES yesterday locked horns at the Kisutu Resident Magistrate’s Court on whether the Dar es Salaam City Council and Regional Commissioner (RC) should be temporarily retrained from impeaching Mr Isaya Mwita as Lord Mayor of the Council.
While Advocate Hekima Mwasipu forcefully asked for an order for maintaining the “status quo,” state lawyers led by Deputy Solicitor General Gabriel Malata submitted to the contrary.Principal Resident Magistrate Janeth Mtega said she will deliver the ruling on the matter today.
It all started when the advocate for Mr Mwita, the applicant, requested the Dar es Salaam Court to grant the order maintaining the status quo, in that his client should not be removed from his position pending final determination of an application he filed two days ago.
He told the court that since the City Council and the RC, the respondents, were in the process of impeaching the Lord Mayor, while the case is pending, it would be prudent for the court to justifiably grant the order sought to avoid the matter to be rendered nugatory.
The advocate for the applicant also submitted that the grant of the order would enable his client to be afforded with the right to be heard, as enshrined under Article 13 (6) (a) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania and that the respondents would not be prejudiced in any way.
According to him, the court was vested with inherent powers to grant the orders sought as per section 95 of the Civil Procedure Code in order to meet the ends of justice.
However, the Deputy Solicitor General, on behalf of the respondents and Attorney General, asked the court to dismiss the request with costs for having been misplaced and lacked both legal and factual basis.
Mr Malata told the court that the application has been brought on speculations as there were no factual backgrounds the applicant brought forward for the court to rely upon before granting the order sought.
For the court to issue restraining orders, he argued, there must be tangible issues. Such issues, he submitted, could be the availability of a meeting deliberating the so called impeachment.
“Unfortunately there is no such a thing. The applicant’s application is based on imagination. There is no circumstances that have been clearly stated to justify the restraint order sought,” he submitted.
On irreparable loss, the state lawyer told the court that the applicant has not indicated how he would be affected if the court desist to grant the request.
He, thus, asked the court to summarily dismiss the application and condemn the applicant to pay costs.
In the main application, the applicant is requesting the court to issue a permanent injunction against the ongoing process of impeaching him as Lord Mayor of the Dar es Salaam City Council.
He is also seeking for orders to declare that the impeachment process is tainted with procedural irregularity and substantively flaws.
The respondents have, however, strongly opposed to the application by filing counter affidavits. In addition, the respondents have filed a notice of preliminary objection, containing three grounds, including the application being premature in law.
Furthermore, the respondents state that the application is untenable in law for lacking jurisdiction as the applicant has not exhausted available remedies.
Furthermore, they state that the application is defective and bad in law for being preferred under the wrong provisions of law.
