Arusha. The High Court at the Songea Sub-Registry in Ruvuma Region has struck out an election petition challenging the parliamentary victory of Tunduru South MP Fadhili Chilombe after finding that the petitioners failed to comply with mandatory requirements on security for costs within the prescribed timelines.
Mohamed Rais and Odax John filed an election petition No. 29982/2025 against the Tunduru South Constituency Returning Officer, the area MP Fadhili Chilombe, and the Attorney General.
The petition challenged the results of the 2025 General Election in which Mr Chilombe was declared the winner of the Tunduru South parliamentary seat.
The ruling was delivered on Tuesday, May 26, 2026, by Judge Sedekia Kisanya and published on the Judiciary’s online platform.
At the centre of the dispute was compliance with Section 140(3) of the Elections Act and Rule 11(1) of the Parliamentary Election Petition Rules, which require petitioners to deposit security for costs within 14 days of filing an election petition.
When the petition was initially filed on November 29, 2025, the petitioners indicated that they had obtained legal aid through the Tanganyika Law Society (TLS), citing financial incapacity. On that basis, Advocate John Seka appeared for them under the alleged arrangement.
This position initially led the court to dismiss a preliminary objection by respondents who argued that the petition was defective for failure to deposit security for costs.
In a ruling issued on December 29, 2025, the court accepted that the petitioners were exempt from the requirement due to the alleged legal aid support.
However, before the hearing commenced, the respondents filed an application for review, arguing that TLS was not registered under the Legal Aid Act and therefore could not lawfully provide legal aid in such proceedings.
In its review ruling delivered on May 5, 2026, the court agreed and overturned its earlier position, holding that the petitioners were not covered by legal aid and were therefore required to comply with security for costs provisions.
Following that decision, State Attorney Edwin Webiro, representing the Returning Officer and the Attorney General, applied to have the petition struck out for non-compliance with statutory timelines.
He argued that once the review decision nullified the earlier exemption, the petition remained outside the 14-day compliance window required under the law.
Counsel for the government submitted that failure to deposit security within the prescribed period triggered automatic dismissal under Section 140(7) of the Elections Act.
He further relied on precedent, including Mchinjita Rashid Ishaka v Returning Officer Lindi Urban Constituency, where a similar petition was struck out for non-compliance with security requirements.
Advocate Gilbert Sawe supported the application on behalf of the second respondent, while petitioners’ counsel John Seka opposed it, arguing for access to justice.
He cited Articles 107A(2)(a) and (e), 108, and 13(1) and (6)(a) of the Constitution, arguing that courts should avoid excessive reliance on technicalities that bar substantive justice.
He also informed the court that a notice of appeal had been filed at the Court of Appeal and urged suspension of the striking-out application pending determination of the appeal.
The respondents countered that compliance with statutory timelines in election petitions is mandatory and that a notice of appeal does not operate as a stay of proceedings.
In his ruling, Judge Kisanya identified three issues: whether the petition was instituted based on legal aid, whether the earlier ruling on security for costs was correctly made, and the effect of the subsequent review decision.
The judge held that the review ruling had established that the petitioners had no valid legal aid and were therefore required to comply with statutory requirements.
He emphasised that election petitions are governed by strict timelines and mandatory procedural rules designed to ensure certainty and finality in electoral disputes.
While acknowledging constitutional principles promoting access to justice, he ruled that such principles cannot override clear statutory obligations.
He concluded that the petition had lost legal competence following the review ruling and could not proceed.
“The petition is hereby struck out for lack of legal competence following the review decision of this court which overturned the earlier ruling on the preliminary objection. This decision may be affected should the intended appeal succeed at the Court of Appeal, in which case the petition may proceed,” ruled Judge Kisanya.
