Sioi Graham Solomon vs ICBC Standard Bank PLC & Others (Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2024) [2025] TZCA 1225 (28 November 2025)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA (CORAM: NDIKA, J.A., FIKIRINI, 3.A. And MGEYEKWA. J J U CIVIL APPEAL NO. 67 OF 2024 SIOI GRAHAM SOLOMON............................................................APPELLANT VERSUS ICBC STANDARD BANK PLC {formerlyknown ds Standard Bank PLC).......................................................... 1st RESPONDENT STANBIC BANK LIMITED ...................................................... 2 n d RESPONDENT THE MINISTER OF FINANCE AND PLANNING..........................3 rd RESPONDENT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA................................... 4™ RESPONDENT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED KINGDOM .............. 5™ RESPONDENT CHIEF SECRETARY TO Her Majesty's Treasury (HM Treasury).......................... . ...... 6 th RESPONDENT THE DIRECTOR OF THE SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE .................... 7™ RESPONDENT (Appeal against the Ruling and Order of the High Court of Tanzania, Main Registry at Dar es Salaam) (Rwezile, J.l dated the 10th day of July, 2023 in Misc. Civil Cause No. 29 of 2021 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 10th & 28th November, 2025 MGEYEKWA. J.A.: Sioi Graham Solomon, the appellant, a citizen of the United Republic of Tanzania, challenged the ruling of the High Court of Tanzania, Main i Registry at Dar es Salaam, in Miscellaneous Application No. 29 of 2021, dated 10th July, 2023. In that ruling, the High Court upheld a preliminary objection and dismissed the appellant's petition to fulfil constitutional duty under the provisions of Article 27 (2) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania. The material background and essential facts of the matter, as discerned from the record of appeal, are briefly as follows. The appellant had filed Miscellaneous Civil Cause No. 29 of 2021 in the High Court (Dar es Salaam Main Registry) under Articles 26 (2) and 27 (1) & (2) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, 1977 (as amended), the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act, Cap. 3 [R.E. 2019] (BRADEA), and the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement (Practice and Procedure) Rules, G.N. No. 304 of 2014 (the BRADEA Rules). In that petition, the appellant sought, among other reliefs, declaratory orders affirming his constitutional duty to protect public property and combat waste; a declaration that funds collected through taxation constitute state property collectively owned by the people; and an order compelling the first and second respondents to disgorge to the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania the sum of USD 8,400,000.00, allegedly derived as profit from a 2012/2013 loan agreement tainted by admitted bribery an 2 allegation purportedly confirmed by a 2015 Deferred Prosecution Agreement entered in the United Kingdom involving the first respondent. The petition was opposed by all respondents, who raised nine preliminary points of objection. Chief among them were that the appellant lacked locus standi and that the petition was improperly initiated against private entities under the constitutional enforcement regime. The matter was initially assigned to a panel of three Judges, in keeping with section 10 (1) of BRADEA, which governs constitutional petitions. However, the panel subsequently assigned the case to a single Judge, Rwizile, J., to hear and determine the preliminary objections. On 10th July, 2023, the learned Judge upheld the objections and dismissed the petition in its entirety. Undeterred, the appellant lodged the present appeal against the decision of the High Court. He initially preferred five grounds of appeal, but for reasons that will become apparent shortly, we find it unnecessary to reproduce them here. At the hearing of the appeal, the appellant was represented by Mr. Sinare Zaharan, learned counsel. The first respondent had the services of Mr. Deusdedith Duncan, assisted by Mr. Emmanuel Daniel Saghan, both learned counsel. The second respondent appeared through Mr. Audax Kameja, learned counsel, who was assisted by Mr. Evarist Kameja, also 3 learned counsel. As for the third respondent, representation was secured through Mr. Daniel Nyakiha, learned Senior State Attorney assisted by Ms. Agnes Gombe, learned State Attorney. The record indicates that the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh respondents were duly served through the third respondent but did not enter appearance. Upon disclosure of this fact by Mr. Zaharan, the Court, acting under Rule 112 (2) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 (the Rules), granted leave for the hearing to proceed in their absence. Before addressing the grounds of appeal, Mr. Zaharan sought, and obtained leave under rule 113 (1) of the Rules to argue an additional ground of appeal filed on 2n d August 2024. He also prayed to abandon the original five grounds, a prayer not opposed by Messrs. Duncan, Kameja, and Nyakiha. Consequently, the appeal proceeded on the additional ground only, which reads: "That, the Trial Court erred in law when the case was first assigned to Three Judges instead o f a single Judge as required by the law, and subsequently, the Three Judges further assigned the case to a single Judge to hear and determine the preliminary objections." In support of this ground, Mr. Zaharan submitted that the record of the High Court shows the matter was filed on 1s t November, 2021, and the Principal Judge constituted a panel of three Judges to preside over it. What led the appearance before Rwizile, J., will give more clarity. The learned counsel for the appellant asserted that when the parties appeared before Rwizile, J., the handling of the matter was inconsistent with section 10 of BRADEA and Rules 7 (1), (2) of the BRADEA Rules. He clarified that the law envisages that preliminary objections or interlocutory matters in constitutional petitions may be heard by a single Judge only if properly assigned by the Principal Judge or Judge in Charge, and not by a panel of three Judges. He relied on the decisions in Onesmo Ole Ngurumwa v. The Attorney General, Civil Appeal No. 165 of 2021 [2024] TZCA 651 and Mpale Kaba Mpoki v. The Attorney General, Civil Appeal No. 166 of 2021 [2025] TZCA 778.. He urged the Court to allow the appeal, quash the High Court's proceedings and remit the matter for proper reassignment, with no order as to costs. In reply, the respondents' counsel conceded the point. They acknowledged that the three-Judge panel lacked jurisdiction to reassign the matter to a single Judge, and accordingly supported the prayers that the 5 proceedings be nullified and the record returned to the High Court for proper reassignment. Having considered the uncontested submissions by the learned counsel on both sides and examined the record of the High Court, the primary issue for our determination is whether the High Court was properly constituted in handling Miscellaneous Civil Cause No. 29 of 2021, and whether the subsequent assignment to a single Judge was lawful. The composition of the High Court in constitutional petitions is governed by section 10 (1) of BRADEA provides: "10.- (1) For the purposes o f hearing and determining any petition made under this Act, including references made to it under section 9, the High Court shall be composed o f three Judges o f the High Court; save that the determination whether an application is frivolous, vexatious or otherwise fit for hearing may be made by a single Judge o f the High Court . " Similarly, rules 7 (1), (2), and 15 (1) of the BRADEA Rules affirm that a constitutional petition must be heard and determined by a panel of three Judges. Nonetheless, rule 7 (2) of the BRADEA Rules creates a narrow procedural exception permitting preliminary matters or interlocutory 6 applications to be handled by a single Judge if properly assigned by the Principal Judge or the Judge in Charge. The critical question, therefore, is who holds the power of assignment. In Onesmo Ole Ngurumwa v. The Attorney General (supra), this Court held that: "The power to assign cases, including the delegation o f preliminary matters in constitutional petitions, resides exclusively with the Principal Judge or the Judge in Charge o f the relevant registry. A pane! o f three judges, once constituted for the substantive hearing, lacks inherent power to deconstitute itself or reassign portions o f the case to a single judge. Such action amounts to an ultra vires exercise, rendering subsequent proceedings null and void ab initio." It is clear from the above excerpt that a three-Judge panel once constituted, has no power to reassign the matter to a single Judge. Any attempt to do so is ultra vires and renders subsequent proceedings null and void. In the present matter, the record indicates that the case was initially placed before a three-Judge panel, which subsequently reassigned it to a single Judge, Rwizile, J., for the determination of the preliminary objection. As rightly submitted by all counsel, this procedure was irregular and contrary to section 10 (1) of BRADEA and rules 7 (2) and 9 (1) & (2) of the BRADEA Rules. The power of reassignment lay solely with the Principal Judge or the Judge in Charge, not the panel itself. In Mpale Kaba Mpoki v. Attorney General, Civil Appeal No. 166 of 2021) [2025] TZCA 778, the Court, while explaining the law on handling petitions before a single Judge or a panel of three Judges, held: "Rule 15 (1) prescribes the mode o f assignment which is done by the Principal Judge or the Judge in Charge. Therefore, reading rule 7 together with rule 15, the import is that it is the Principai Judge or Judge in Charge who was vested with the power of assigning any petition to a single Judge or to the panel of three Judges. "[Emphasis added] Based on the authorities cited above, we find and hold that the three Judge panel exceeded its remit when it reassigned the petition to a single Judge an exercise of power not sanctioned by the BRADEA Rules. It therefore follows that the learned single Judge acted without jurisdiction, rendering the High Court proceedings and ruling a nullity. Accordingly, we are satisfied that the additional ground of appeal has merit. Consequently, the proceedings conducted by Rwizile, J., together with the ruling and the resultant orders, are hereby nullified and quashed. We 8 direct that the record be remitted to the High Court for reassignment by the Principal Judge to a duly authorized single Judge to determine the preliminary objections in accordance with the law. In light of the common position taken by all learned counsel, we make no order as to costs. DATED at DAR ES SALAAM this 27th day of November, 2025. G. A. M. NDIKA JUSTICE OF APPEAL P. S. FIKIRINI JUSTICE OF APPEAL A. Z. MGEYEKWA JUSTICE OF APPEAL Judgment delivered this 28th day of November, 2025 in the presence of Mr. Hope Paul, learned counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Emmanuel D. Saghan, learned Counsel for the 1s t Respondent, Mr. Waziri Mchome, learned advocate for the 2n d Respondent, Mr. Daniel Nyakiha, Learned Senior State Attorney for the 3rd and 4th Respondents, in the absence of the 5th and 6th Respondents and Janekisa Bukuku, Court Clerk is hereby certified as a true copy of the c