On Tuesday, January 27, 2026, the same court dismissed another 19 cases filed by former ACT-Wazalendo parliamentary candidates from Unguja, after upholding a preliminary objection that it has no jurisdiction to hear cases arising from the election of Members of Parliament of the United Republic of Tanzania.
Arusha. The High Court of Zanzibar has dismissed 14 cases filed by former ACT-Wazalendo parliamentary candidates challenging parliamentary election results in constituencies in Pemba, after ruling that it lacks the legal jurisdiction to hear the matters.
The ruling was delivered on Wednesday, January 28, 2026, by Justice Haji Suleiman Khamis, who presided over the cases.
On Tuesday, January 27, 2026, the same court dismissed another 19 cases filed by former ACT-Wazalendo parliamentary candidates from Unguja, after upholding a preliminary objection that it has no jurisdiction to hear cases arising from the election of Members of Parliament of the United Republic of Tanzania.
In the latest ruling, the complainants were Mr Mohamed Said Issa and 13 others, who had filed applications against returning officers for the 14 constituencies for Konde, Gando, Ole, Chambani, Mkoani, Wingwi, Wete, Chakechake, Wawi, Micheweni, Chonga, Kojani, Ziwani, and Kiwani, as well as the Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania (AG).
In their applications, Mr Said and his co-applicants sought exemption from the requirement to deposit security for election costs in the affected constituencies; however, the respondents raised a preliminary objection.
During the hearing of the objection, the applicants were represented by Advocate Omar Said Shaaban, while the respondents were represented by a team of six lawyers led by the Principal State Attorney, Allan Shija.
Before hearing the objection, the court invited lawyers from both sides to address why it should not take judicial notice of its earlier decision in the previous applications relating to 19 constituencies, in which the court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear applications seeking exemption from the deposit of security for election costs.
The court raised the issue on the basis that the current applications, filed at the High Court of Zanzibar, Pemba Registry, were similar to those decided on January 27, 2026, and that the objection on jurisdiction determined in those cases was identical to the one raised in the present applications.
Advocate Shija conceded that the previously decided applications and the current ones were similar, noting that the only difference was that the present applications had not yet been heard.
He asked the court to determine them through written submissions, a position accepted by the applicants’ counsel.
Court ruling
After considering submissions from both sides, Justice Khamis said the court had taken the arguments into account and examined the nature of the applications and the reliefs sought.
He said it is an established legal principle that judicial notice may be taken of decisions of courts with competent jurisdiction, and that the doctrine of stare decisis is not limited by the geographical location of the registry where a decision is delivered, and therefore does not diminish the legal force of such a decision.
The judge said Tuesday’s decision addressed the issue of jurisdiction, which also arose in the current applications.
He noted that both the present and earlier applications were filed in registries that form part of the same court and are governed by the same laws and jurisdictional framework.
“To rehear an issue that has already been determined is to compel the court and the parties to repeat a process without sufficient justification, which is contrary to the principles of judicial efficiency and integrity,” the judge said in his ruling.
The court further held that no new arguments or circumstances had been presented to justify departing from its earlier position that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain applications for exemption from security for costs arising from parliamentary election petitions, and consequently dismissed the cases.
“Accordingly, applications numbered one to 14 are hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction. In the circumstances, I make no order as to costs,” the judge concluded.
In Tuesday’s ruling, Justice Khamis noted that the Zanzibar court has limited jurisdiction and should not hear election disputes, as the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania mandates that such cases be heard by Tanzanian courts.
