"Fiat Justitia Ruat Caelum"

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS IN TANZANIA


(CTL CLASS – 11TH and 12th MAY 2011)

  © JABA SHADRACK, Department of Public Law, School of Law (Formerly, Faculty of law) at the University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania


Lecture outline:
  1. Introduction to Adjudicative/Judicial Powers in Tanzania
  2. Definition of Administrative Tribunals
  3. Other names for/of Administrative Tribunals
  4. Types and Examples of Administrative Tribunals in Tanzania
  5. Legal basis of Administrative Tribunals in Tanzania
  6. Ordinary Courts v/s Administrative Tribunals
  7. Inherent features of Administrative Tribunals
  8. Why Administrative Tribunals? (Advantages)
  9. Criticism of Administrative Tribunals (Disadvantages)
Introduction to Judicial Powers in Tanzania
Traditionally, the duty of determining disputes between individuals in the society is viewed as an exclusive domain of the ordinary courts of law. The conception of a court as a central adjudicative body found acceptance in most of the classical scholars' writings such as Montesquieu (separation of powers) and contemporary jurists such as Dicey (rule of law). The Constitution of Tanzania, 1977 (RE: 2005) under Article 4(1)(2) vests judicial powers in the Judiciary of the United Republic and the Judiciary of the Revolutionary government of Zanzibar. In the same vein, The Constitution of Zanzibar, 1984 (RE: 2006) under Article 5A(2) confers judicial authority to the Courts of law. Article 107A(1) of the Constitution of Tanzania (supra) cements and reiterate the above position by providing that;

The Judiciary shall be the authority with final decision in dispensation of justice in the United Republic of Tanzania.

Though the Constitution of Tanzania (supra) is very clear on which organ should exercise judicial powers, in reality many judicial functions have come to be performed by the executive, e.g. imposition of fines, levy of penalty, confiscation of goods, cancellation of licences and etc.

Summary:
Under the Constitution of Tanzania and Zanzibar respectively, the Courts of law have exclusive jurisdiction in the adjudicative system of the country.


  Definition of Administrative Tribunals

There is no universally accepted definition of the term Administrative Tribunals or simply 'tribunal' as per professor Jain. However, jurists, academicians, and administrators (politicians) have made several attempts to explain the same. Now, let us look at some of the definitions;
  • Thakker (Takwani, 1998)
Are bodies established to decide various quasi-judicial issues in place of ordinary courts.
  • Supreme Court of India, 1954.
Are adjudicative bodies constituted, manned and operated by the executive.
  • L.B. Curzon, Dictionary of Law, 6th Ed., 2002 (Pearson/Longman).
Are bodies outside the hierarchy of the courts with administrative or judicial functions.
  • Concise Oxford Dictionary, 10th Ed., 2001.
A body established to settle certain types of dispute.
  • E.W. Susan, Law Dictionary, 2006 (Webster's New World Law Dictionary).
An officer or other judicial body with the authority to pronounce judgment on a matter based upon the evidence.

 
Summary:
Administrative Tribunal/Tribunal may be referred to as a person or body of persons or administrative agency not forming part of the Judiciary with limited statutory powers to determine disputes and pass binding decisions between individuals, or individuals and officers in the Department of the government.

 

Other names for/of Administrative Tribunals
Administrative tribunals are also known as "Quasi-judicial Bodies", or "Statutory Tribunals".


 


Note:
Why do we call them 'administrative tribunals' or 'quasi-judicial bodies' or 'statutory tribunals'?
  • They are known as administrative tribunals because as opposed to ordinary courts, these bodies are composed and chaired by lay administrators (normally, non-lawyers) who are either appointees' of the President or Minister for a fixed term.
  • They are referred to as quasi-judicial bodies since they are not full-fledged courts (i.e. not courts of law properly so called, they have supplemental/complementally role to the Courts).
  • They are called statutory tribunals simply because they are creations of the statute.
Types and examples of Administrative Tribunals in Tanzania
Administrative tribunals are classified into two (2) major components, i.e. statutory authority, and statutory tribunal.

(a) Statutory Authority: 
This refers to individual holders of public offices who have statutory powers to hear disputes (in original or appellate jurisdiction/capacity). For example, labour officers and Minister for Labour in certain circumstances have statutory powers to entertain and make decisions on labour disputes between an employer and employee/s. **A 'single' person exercises judicial powers.

  (b) Statutory Tribunals:
These are adjudicative body or agency established by specific Acts of Parliament. Usually, the establishing statute will provides for composition (i.e. appointing authority, qualifications and etc), membership tenure, quorum, procedures and etc. **A 'group' of persons exercises judicial powers.

Examples;
  • Military Tribunal (Court Martial),
  • The Tax Revenue Appeals Board,
  • The Environmental Appeals Tribunal,
  • The Fair Competition Tribunal,
  • The District Land and Housing Tribunal,
  • The Ward Tribunal and etc.

    Legal basis of Administrative Tribunals in Tanzania
The Constitution
of Tanzania (supra) is silent as to the delegation of judicial powers to other organs of the state. However, by implication (not expressly provided) Article 13(6)(a) of the Constitution of Tanzania (supra) and Article 12(6)(a) of the Constitution
of Zanzibar (supra) recognise tribunals. The said Articles require "the Court" and "other agency" to take into account the principle of fair hearing in deciding disputes. Thus, one may argue that the term, "other agency" refers to administrative tribunals. All in all, it should be noted that administrative tribunals originates from respective Acts of the Parliament.

The best practice:
The Constitution of Kenya (2010),
Article 1(3)(c);
(1) All sovereign power belongs to the people of Kenya and shall be exercised only in accordance with this Constitution.
(2) The people may exercise their sovereign power either directly or through their democratically elected representatives.
(3) Sovereign power under this Constitution is delegated to the following State organs, which shall perform their functions in accordance with this Constitution––
(a) Parliament and the legislative assemblies in the county governments;
(b) The national executive and the executive structures in the county governments; and
(c) The Judiciary and independent tribunals.


  Ordinary Courts v/s Administrative Tribunals


(a) Similarities:
  • Both are adjudicative machineries (i.e. invested with judicial powers).
  • Both are governed by Acts of Parliaments.
  • Both have permanent existence.
(b) Differences:
  • All courts are tribunals but not all tribunals are courts.
  • Courts are part and parcel of the judiciary while tribunals are considered part of the executive (i.e. they have hybrid functions).
  • Essentially, Courts have unlimited powers to adjudicate, but tribunals have limited adjudicative powers.
  • Courts handle disputes objectively, while tribunals deal with disputes subjectively.
  • Courts can decide the 'vires' (constitutionality/legality/fairness) of a legislation/law, but tribunals can not do so.
  • Courts are presided over by officers trained in law, while most of tribunals are chaired and composed of laymen.
NB:
It should be borne in mind that tribunals are not executive body or administrative Department of the state.
They are quasi-judicial body and not purely administrative in nature.

Inherent features of Administrative Tribunals
Administrative tribunals are characterized by following features;
  • Administrative tribunals are constituted by Acts of the Parliament (and not by Government) i.e. tribunals are statutory creatures'
  • Decisions of administrative tribunals are judicial rather than administrative. Tribunals decide on legal issues, in so doing, they confer or restrain rights to individuals.
  • Administrative tribunals do not deal with cases in which a government is a party. They adjudicate disputes between businessmen, employer/employee, landlord/tenant, and etc.
  • Administrative tribunals are not bound by strict rules of procedures, evidences and other legal technicalities.
  • They have judicial powers (e.g. to summon witnesses, pass legally enforceable decisions and etc).
Why Administrative Tribunals? (Advantages).
Legal scholars and policy-makers justify the existence of administrative tribunals by advancing the following reasons:-
Ordinary courts are very slow, costly (e.g. court and advocate fees), complex and formalistic in solving disputes. For examples a case may be pending in a court of law for two (2) to five (5) years. Thus, administrative tribunal emerged to ensure speedy dispensation of justice in vital areas of the economy.


  Note: 

Justice delayed is justice denied.

  •   Use of administrative tribunals avoids floodgate of cases in courts of law (i.e. reduce court's workload/congestion of cases in courts of law).
Administrative tribunals are better placed to take preventive measures, e.g. suspension, cancellation or revocation of a licence, destruction of contaminated articles, taking care of perishable goods and etc.


  Experience:

Court battle over the so called 'Magufuli fishes'
in 2010.


  •   Administrative tribunals have required expertise, specialty, and experience in their filed of operations, e.g. Doctors disciplinary bodies/tribunals. Disputes are dealt with persons with an intimate knowledge and experience of the problems involved.
  • They avoid legal technicalities/legalistic approach over disputes. Courts are very conservative, rigid and technical, e.g.
    precedent, stare decisis, rules of procedures, evidences, pleadings (use of legalese and legal documents and etc.
    They are characterised by an informal atmosphere and procedure.
  • Ensures effective implementation of socio-economic policies and schemes found in the statute.


     

    Summary:
    Cheapness, accessibility, flexibility (freedom from technicalities), expeditious, expertise, and efficiency

    Criticism of Administrative Tribunals (Disadvantages)
Opponents of administrative tribunals cite the following weaknesses;
  • The practice violates the principle of separation of powers. The main challengers of the use of administrative tribunals are professor Dicey (rule of law), and Montesquieu (separation of powers).
Speedy resolution of cases by tribunals may lead to injustices.

Note:
Justice hurried is justice buried.

  •   They have wide discretion thus making their decisions uncertain or unpredictable.
  • The right to appeal is not always guaranteed. Normally, statutes establishing administrative have phrases such as, "the decision shall be final and conclusive", "the decision shall not be appealable", "the decision shall not be subjected to judicial review", and etc. Such kinds of provisions have come to be known as "ouster clauses", "finality clauses", "protective clauses" or "preclusive clauses".
  • They are not always independent of the government influences. For example, Officers of the Ministry may form part of the panel/quorum, and usually members of the tribunals are appointees of the President or Minister.
  • In practice, administrative tribunals violates rules of natural justice i.e. they pass decisions without; giving reasons, hearing all parties, or adjudicates in matters that they have interest, or abdicate/sub-delegate their judicial powers to other agencies or person/s.

      Maxim:
Nemo judex in causa sua potest (i.e. no one can be a judge in his own cause); Audi alteram partem (i.e. hear both sides); Delegatus non potest delegare (i.e. delegated powers can not be delegated any further).

  •   Tribunals are manned by laymen and thus advocates are not allowed to appear.
  • Subordination of the ordinary courts of law.
        
NB:
The aspect of "Judicial control of administrative tribunal" will be covered under the caption, "Judicial control of Administrative Action/s (i.e. Judicial Review)".
H/Work:
  1. Show the differences between "administrative tribunals", "commission of inquiry" and "disciplinary committees".
  2. Name and explain any ten (10) administrative tribunals in Tanzania.
References:
[Available at the law collection, UDSM - Main Library]
Thakker, C.K (Justice Takwani) (1998) Lectures on Administrative Law. (Law KPN. T45). **Read,
pp.192-233.
Wade (1998) Administrative Law.  (Law KD 4879. W3). **Read, pp. 776-824.
   

Judicial Control of Delegated Legislations


CTL CLASS – 28TH APRIL 2011)

 

© JABA SHADRACK, Department of Public Law, School of Law (Formerly, Faculty of law) at the University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania


  Lecture III

  1. A Recap of/to Lecture II
  2. Court's reasons for nullifying Delegated Legislation
...............................................………………………………………

            A Recap of/to Lecture II
  • Show the cons and pros of Delegated Legislation in the law making process.
  • With vivid examples, critically examines the role of the National Assembly in controlling legislative powers delegated to Ministers and Local Authorities in Tanzania.

    Court's reasons for nullifying Delegated Legislation
There are several grounds upon which courts can review quasi-legislative powers of administrators. Usually, courts control delegated legislations through judicial review (by employing the
doctrine of ultra vires). The doctrine of ultra vires comes into play where the legislating body (person) sidestep procedures or substantive matters provided in the Enabling Act or other laws of the land, thus the concept procedural and substantive ultra vires. Now, let us look at the specific grounds which form part and parcel of the doctrine of ultra vires

(a) Where a delegated legislation is inconsistent with any written law of the land (i.e. enabling/parent Act, other principal legislations, or the Constitution.

  • Article 64(5) of the Constitution of Tanzania, 1977 (RE: 2005).
  • Section 36(1) of Cap. 1 (RE: 2002)
  • Chester v. Bateson (1920) 1 KB 829
  • Heridas v. Kericho U.D.C 1965 EA 370
  • Powel v. May 1946 K.B 330.
  • Kanji v. Tanga Township Authority 1940 1 TLR 339.
  • Koinage Mbiu v. R (1951) 24 (2) KLR 130.

(b) Where the enabling/parent Act is Unconstitutional, therefore delegated legislations made thereunder becomes invalid.

NB:
Repealing of an Enabling Act does not invalidate delegated legislations made thereunder.
Section 33 of Cap. 1 (RE: 2002).

(c) Where the delegated legislation was not made by the authorised person or body (i.e. the rule against sub-delegation of public powers/exercise of power by a wrong person).
  • Blackpool corporation v. Locker (1948) 1 ALL ER 85
  • Heridas v. Kericho U.D.C 1965 EA 370
  • Remtulla Gulamani v. R (1936) 1 TLR (R) 203.
  • Maxim: delegatus no potest delegare
  • Sub-delegation v/s Alter ego principle
    (d) Where a delegated legislation has retrospective effect.
    • Howell v. Falmouth Boat Construction Co. Ltd. (1951) 2 ALL ER 278
    • Malloch v. Aberdeen Corporation (No. 2) (1974) S.L.T 5
    (e) Where a delegated legislation is made without consultation of affected interests (failure to consult).
    Rollo v. Minister of Town & County Planning (1948) 1 ALL ER 13 (17).
    (f) Where a delegated legislation is made without being publicised or gazetted (failure to publicise).
    • Section 37(1)(a) of Cap. 1 (RE: 2002).
    • Johnson v. Sargant (1918) 1 KB 101.
    • Hotch v. US (1954) 212 F 2d 280

    (g) Where there is a failure to lay a delegated legislation before the National Assembly.
    • Section 38 of Cap. 1 (RE: 2002).
    • R. v. Sheer Metal Craft (1954) 1 ALL ER 548. 

    (h) Where a delegated legislation is unreasonable, uncertain or ambiguous.
    • Kruse v. Johnson (1898) 2 QB 91.
    • Arlidge v. Islington Corporation (1909)2 KB 127.
    • Nash v. Finlay (1901) 66 JP 183.
    • R. v. Hermitte (1938) 18 KLR 55.
    (i) Where the power to make a delegated legislation is exercised malafidely (in bad faith). 
    • R. v. Comptroller-General of Patents (1941) 2 KB 306.
    • Kruse v. Johnson (1898) 2 QB 91.

    References:
    Thakker (1998) Lectures on Administrative Law, p. 99-141;

    The Legal Aid Committee of the UDSM - Faculty of Law (1985) Essays on Law and Society. Sapoba Bookshop Press, Uganda.

    Parliamentary Control of Delegated Legislations


    CTL CLASS – 27TH APRIL 2011)

     

    © JABA SHADRACK, Department of Public Law, School of Law (Formerly, Faculty of law) at the University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania


      Lecture II



      A Recap of/to Lecture I

    1. Disadvantages of Delegated Legislation (Critique)
    2. Control of powers to make Delegated Legislations
      1. Parliamentary Oversight
      2. Judicial Oversight
      A: Parliamentary Oversight

      A Recap of/to Lecture I

    • Define what is meant by delegated legislation and how delegated powers are granted.
    • Describe the main forms of delegated legislation.
    • Identify the main reasons for delegated legislation.
    • Differentiate between Enabling Act, and Enabling Provision.
    • Show the basis of Ministers and local authorities to make delegated legislations?
    • Who exercises power to make delegated legislation?


      Disadvantages of Delegated Legislation (an appraisal/critique) 

    1. It is subject to less parliamentary scrutiny than principal legislation. This may lead to inconsistencies between Principal and Delegated legislations. Thus, unless such inconsistent law (Delegated legislation) is challenged and declared a nullity in the Court of law, it continues to curtail people's rights and freedom.
    2. It violates the principle of Separation of Power (Article 4 of the Tanzania Constitution, 1977).
    3. Creates a loophole for the government (the executive, especially Ministers) to use delegated legislation to abrogate or circumvent Principal legislation or to push their hidden agenda/scheme/project/reform through delegated legislations. In England such kind of powers are known as 'Henry VIII Powers'.
    4. Many laws are made through the use of delegated powers. It is estimated that more than 250 delegated legislations are made every year in Tanzania. This makes the law unstable and thus uncertain.
    5. Increasing use of delegated legislation lead to subordination of the Parliament.


      Lord Hewart of Bury (the then Lord Chief Justice of England) call this the 'new despotism' which aims at, 


        "…to subordinate Parliament, to evade the Courts, and to render the will, or the caprice, of the Executive unfettered and supreme".

       
    6. Lack of democracy: Delegated legislations are made by unelected people or bodies (i.e. civil servants such as Directors, Commissions, government departments, Boards, regulatory agencies, the Chief Justice and etc).
    7. Lack of publicity: The public is often unaware of new law which is introduced by statutory instruments. Besides, people are less involved in making delegated legislations, thus the society has limited knowledge about provisions of such laws.

    8. The law confers enormous powers to the Minister over by-laws made by local authorities to the extent of undercutting the essence of decentralisation of powers. On this point, the Legal Aid Committee (the UDSM - Faculty of Law)
      says,


       

      "A by-law made by local authorities does not become law until it has been approved by the Regional Commissioner and consented to by the Minister. Thus at the level of legislation we see a lot of relationship between the local authorities and the central government represented by the Regional Commissioner and the Minister. The central government also seems to have overriding powers over local authorities. If the aim was decentralization and democracy, this position needs to be reappraised".
    NB: Refer, Section 90(3)(4) of The
    Local Government (Urban Authorities) Act [Cap. 288, RE: 2002], and Sections 152-180 of The
    Local Government (District Authorities) Act [Cap. 287, RE: 2002).

    Control of the Power to make Delegated Legislations
    1. A: Parliamentary Oversight
    In Tanzania, the National Assembly controls Delegated Legislation by stipulating parameters or the ambit in the Principal legislation within which the enactment (Delegated Legislation) should confine itself. There are two ways of which a Parliament exercises power over Delegated Legislations, i.e. direct and indirect control.

    (a) Direct Control
    Laying regulations or by-laws before the National Assembly.
      Under this method, the National Assembly scrutinises directly Delegated Legislations made by delegated individuals or bodies by requiring laws made to be laid before it for approval or rejection (disallowance). Here the parliament can do the following (depending on the conditions set by the enabling Act):-

      •  Negative resolution procedure 

      This is a common form of control which may or may not involve a motion of annulment. A Delegated Legislation become law with acquiescence (agreeing by silence) i.e. without a debate or a vote (but may be opposed by a Member of the National Assembly). Usually, the Delegated Legislation is laid before the National Assembly in draft for a certain period, and on the expiration of such time without being disapproved by the same becomes a law. Or it may be laid before the National Assembly after it is made (before it comes into force), but will be revoked if the same passes a resolution annulling it within a certain period of time. Therefore, if there is no motion of annulment in the National Assembly within the statute-specified time the Delegated Legislation becomes a law.

      NB: Section 38(1)(2) of Cap. 1 provides that,
      "(1) All regulations shall be laid before the National Assembly within 6 sitting days of the National Assembly next following publication of the regulations in the Gazette.
      (2) Notwithstanding any provision in any Act to the contrary, if the National Assembly passes a resolution disallowing any regulations of which resolution notice has been given within 14 sitting days of the National Assembly after such regulations have been laid before it or if any regulations are not laid before the National Assembly in accordance with subsection (1), such regulations shall cease to have effect, but without affecting the validity or curing the invalidity of anything done or of the omission of anything in the meantime."
      • Affirmative resolution procedure

      There are Delegated legislations which require a positive approval of the National Assembly to become law. These kinds of Delegated Legislations are less common in law making process. The affirmative resolution is used where the delegated legislation may be more controversial especially one which relates to financial matters. These procedure is carried before a Delegated Legislation is made (i.e. in draft form) or after it is made but before coming into force or
      after it is made and has come into force but it cannot remain in force for longer than a specified period. The National assembly must expressly approve them to become law. The National Assembly has to vote for the Delegated Legislation to become law.

      NB: The National Assembly does not amend statutory instruments laid before it, but merely scrutinize them prior to their enactment/promulgation or after enactment to allow drafting errors to be corrected. 

      • Supervision by Parliamentary Committees

      This is done by a special select Committee charged with the function to oversee delegated legislation. Such Committees are formed when the envisaged Delegated Legislation relate to issues of public policy or interest.

      •  Government Ministers are accountable and can be questioned by the National Assembly. 

      NB: Refer the principle of "Ministerial Responsibility" (Individual and Collective Responsibility).

       (b)  Indirect control 

      • (i.e. Substantive and Procedural Matters in the Enabling Act)
      The National Assembly or House of Representatives, usually sets pre-conditions (either substantive or procedural) upon individuals or bodies making Delegated legislation must adhere to.
      1. Publication (antecedent and subsequent publicity)
      Here the enabling Act may require either publicity of the proposed Delegated Legislation (in draft) or publicity of the same after it comes into force (or both).
      NB: Section 37(1)(a)(b) of Cap. 1 provides that,
      Examples:
      • Subsequent publicity
      **Section 37(1)(a) of Cap. 1
      "(1) Where a written law confers power to make subsidiary legislation, all subsidiary legislation made under that power shall, unless the contrary intention appears–
      • Be published in the Gazette;
      ** Section 19(2) of The Armaments Control Act (Cap. 246, RE: 2002),
      **Section 33(2) of The Arms and Ammunition Act (Cap. 223, RE: 2002)
      **Sections 90(5) of Cap. 288 [The Local Government (Urban Authorities) Act]
      • Statutory Consultation
      Here the enabling Act requires an individual or body enacting Delegated Legislation to seek/have audience with people (area) or organisations which is likely to be affected by a Delegated Legislation.
      Examples:
      **Section 62 of The Universities Act (Act No. 5 of 2005) obligates the Minister to consult the Tanzania Commission for Universities before making regulations.
      **Section 78(1) of The Education Act (Cap. 353, RE: 2002) requires the Minister to make regulation after consultation with the Educational Advisory Council.
      **Section 92(2) of Cap 288
      "Where the Minister proposes to invoke the power conferred by section 91 to make uniform by-laws in respect of all or a category of urban authorities, he shall, at least two months before making the by-laws by notice published in the Gazette and in any national newspaper or, as the case may be, any newspaper circulating in the area of the urban authorities or category of urban authorities proposed to be made, give notice of his intention, indicating the precise purport of the intended by-laws, and shall call upon all interested authorities affected, and persons within the area of jurisdiction of those urban authorities, to lodge any objections in writing with him in a manner and within such time as may be prescribed; and an urban authority may request that it be permitted to appear and be heard by the Minister".
      • Statutory subject matter and content
      The enabling Act may also list matters which the Minister or body making Regulations or by-laws may enact upon.
      E.g. Section 19(1)(a)-(h) of The Armaments Control Act (Cap. 246, RE: 2002), Section 33(1)(a)-(j) of The Arms and Ammunition Act (Cap. 223, RE: 2002).
      • National Assembly's sanction over Administrative Orders.
      For instance, the President's proclamation of the state of emergency under Article 32(1)-(3) of the Constitution must be supported by a resolution (votes) of not less than two thirds of all members of the National Assembly.

      MISCELLANEOUS

        Rationale of Parliamentary oversight

      To monitor powers which it has delegated.

      Status of the Delegated Legislation after the enabling/empowering Act is repealed.
      • Repeal of an enabling Act does not nullify instruments made therein; save where the repealing Act expressly (or by reasonable implication) nullifies the same or such instruments are inconsistent/irreconcilable with the repealing Act.

        **Section 33 of Cap. 1
        (1) Where an Act–
            (a)    repeals an Act and substitutes other provisions; or
            (b)    repeals and re-enacts an Act, with or without modification, any subsidiary legislation made under the repealed Act and in operation immediately before the commencement of the repealing Act shall, so far as it is consistent with the repealing Act, continue in operation and have effect for all purposes as if made under the repealing Act.
        (2) Subsidiary legislation which continues in operation under subsection (1), may be amended or repealed as if it has been made under the repealing Act.

          
        Case
        Diamond Motel Ltd. v. Jasper School Board
        (1977) 2 A.R. 586 (T.D.)

        held that regulations or orders, made under a repealed statute, remain in force where other provisions are substituted by way of amendment, revision or consolidation.

        Normally, 'the saving/transition provision' in the repealing Act will provide the status of instruments made under the repealed Act.

        For example, The Law of the Child Act (Act No. 21 of 2009) under section 160(1)(a)-(e) inter alia, repeals the Affiliation Act; the Adoption Act; the Day Care Centres Act; the Children and Young Persons Act; and the Children Home (Regulation) Act. However, Sub-sections 2(c)(d) of section 160 retains Delegated Legislation made under repealed laws by providing that; 

        "(c) All rules made under the provisions of the repealed laws shall be deemed to have been made under this Act and shall remain in force and have effect until replaced in accordance with the provisions of this
        Act; and
        (d) All orders, notices, by-laws, directives given or anything given or made by a person authorized as such by an officer so authorized to give or make orders, notices, by-laws, directives given under the repealed Acts shall he deemed to have been made under this Act and shall remain in force and have effect until amended or withdrawn under this Act".

        Quiz for the Recap (Prelude to Lecture III):
        • Show the cons and pros of Delegated Legislation in the law making process.
        • With vivid examples, critically examines the role of the National Assembly in controlling legislative powers delegated to Ministers and Local Authorities in Tanzania.

        References:


        The Legal Aid Committee of the UDSM - Faculty of Law (1985) Essays on Law and Society. Sapoba Bookshop Press, Uganda

        Lord Hewart (1929) The New Despotism. London: Ernest Benn Limited

        The Statutory Instruments House of Commons Information Office Factsheet L7 (RE: 2008)

      JURIST - Paper Chase

      Blog Archive

      Followers