Kigoma. The Attorney General (AG) has raised legal questions in an election petition contesting the victory of Kigoma Urban MP Clayton Chipando, popularly known as Baba Levo (CCM), over security for election costs.
The dispute centres on the legality of the Tanganyika Law Society (TLS) providing free legal assistance to petitioners Johary Kabourou, Loum Mwitu, Pendo Kombolela, and Luma Akilimali.
The AG argues TLS lacked the authority to offer such assistance.
The petitioners are represented by Advocate John Seka, appointed by TLS, but the AG has questioned the society’s authority to provide such legal assistance.
Through Senior State Attorney Marko Mulwambo, the AG filed an application seeking an extension of time to register a review application against the High Court in Kigoma’s December 16, 2025, decision dismissing their preliminary objection.
The first respondent, the Returning Officer for Kigoma Urban Constituency, and the third respondent, the AG, had filed two preliminary objections when the petition was lodged, including one regarding security for election petition costs.
They argued the Court lacked jurisdiction to set a hearing date because security for costs had neither been applied for nor paid, contrary to Sections 140(2), (3), (5) and (7) of the Elections Act, 2024.
The AG requested that the petition be struck out, insisting that the procedure for applying for security for costs had not been followed, despite the advocate’s appointment by TLS.
However, Justice Projestus Kayhoza dismissed their objections, along with three others filed by Baba Levo’s advocates, Mr Daniel Rumenyela and Emmanuel Msasa.
“After analysing all preliminary legal objections submitted by the respondents, I declare that all those objections lack legal merit and substance and, therefore, I dismiss them,” said the Judge.
AG’s new argument
In a fresh application filed on March 2, 2026, and determined through an interlocutory ruling by Justice Augustine Rwizile of the High Court, Kigoma Sub-Registry, on March 27, 2026, the AG raised a new issue regarding TLS’s legality.
The application is against the first to fourth respondents, Johary Kabourou, Loum Mwita, Pendo Kombolela, and Luma Akilimali, and Baba Levo as the fifth respondent.
Justice Rwizile explained that the application, filed under Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act, Chapter 89, Revised Edition 2023, and Section 105 of the Civil Procedure Code, Chapter 33, Revised Edition 2023, was under a certificate of urgency with an affidavit from Advocate Mulwambo.
The AG argued that at the time of the Court’s December 16, 2025, decision, TLS was assumed to have authority to provide legal assistance.
Official clarification from the Ministry of Constitution and Legal Affairs on February 12, 2026, showed TLS’s registration had expired on April 28, 2022, leaving it without legal mandate in 2025.
The applicants said this constitutes new evidence not available when the decision was made.
Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act allows the Court discretionary power to extend time in proceedings, exercised judiciously according to justice and law.
The Judge noted the applicants began seeking confirmation from the Ministry on December 12, 2025, and received the full response on February 12, 2026, confirming TLS lacked valid registration as of November 14, 2025.
They filed the present application after receiving this information, citing diligence and seriousness in pursuing their legal right despite a 29-day delay.
Respondents’ submissions
Through Advocate Seka, the first to fourth respondents argued that the application introduces illegality not apparent on the record and cannot be legitimised through extension of time.
They said extending time on this basis was an attempt to obtain a different decision through another forum, which is not lawful.
Advocate Seka described it as “riding two horses,” noting that Appeal Number 87 of 2026 was already pending.
Conducting simultaneous proceedings on the same issues, he argued, lacks legal validity and constitutes abuse of the court process.
Granting the application while the appeal is ongoing would contravene Court of Appeal principles.
Furthermore, Advocate Seka added that the proper route for such issues is through appeal, not extension of time.
The respondents were not seeking costs, as they were beneficiaries of TLS legal assistance. Baba Levo, the fifth respondent, supported the application.
Judge’s decision
The Judge said after reviewing all submissions and affidavits, the key issue was whether the applicants deserved an extension of time.
“I have reviewed records of the previous case and proceedings. The disputed issue concerns security for costs in an election petition, as a person granted legal assistance is not required to pay court costs when filing a petition challenging election results,” he said.
The Judge said the delay was not due to negligence, but was due to waiting for official legal confirmation.
The Court agreed that the delay was not caused by pursuing two proceedings simultaneously.
“Taking into account all matters explained above, I am satisfied that the applicants have presented substantial and compelling reasons warranting the grant of an extension of time; therefore, the application is granted,” he said.
The Judge directed the applicants, namely the Returning Officer for Kigoma Urban Constituency and the AG, to file their review application within three days of the ruling, March 27, 2026.
