Farida Shakirhasan Muraj vs Director of Immigration Services (Misc. Civil Cause 27 of 2000) [2000] TZHC 32 (23 August 2000)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA A T Dfiri EH S ALAAM Sg£^-CIVIL_CAU SE ao.?7 I f 'jiw i M R ID A SHAKIRHASAN W RAJ - T ; ~ . ............' t f P L I C * I T VERSUS 2 ! THE H O ^ CM IN IS T F R VOFGH O t - ° W S E R Y ICE) 3 . t h e HON. a t t o r n e y APFAIRS j • • ^ s p o n d e j j t g - u L I 1\T r. 3UBE3HI ^ . t « Mr- Komba “ "»ts of objections, namely that:!’ ’P °n°8ntS haS ralsed P ^ i n a r ; the application has been prematurely filed as the ■ applicants husband appHcation for * . , Iq vpt k j dppj-xcaxion for naturalization yet to be determined^ as the applicants husband ~^+ a j ^a ls ncrt a minor nor nf r ~ ~ — •“ * - to agree with Mr K a m b j r p o s m l ^ r M s S“b"‘ i“l0n “ ld 1 tend :Ms Sheikh's submissions have dealt at len ht 3 °"S have "^it s . at best need evidential proof. We are not w ” * of the charges in Criminal Case No 124/Loo T " ^ ^ ^ husband. What is the current states of th ^ sppllcaaV+ ■ view of the fact that his - a applicant's husband in °n 1/6/2000? such q u e s t i o n s ' n e e T t Y r 1 ^ ' - C ' ° SXPlre or her husband. That the ■ a n m • “ “ "ered by the applicant toat their permits Could not be r e n t e d " ^ ' ' What is the current position? ” speoulatlve. On whether the potitioner has locus stanrtl t k a let of interest the submissions filed bv I1 haVS read with agree with her that a wife h ■ counsel Ms Sheikh. X Petition for and on behll ? ? “ **“ °f « * » — try can ' , UNITY DOW V» A T T O W Y rr'wniT ^ °and °n the.basls o t ‘ . the Botswana. ^ “ B C » N ° ’V * ^ o m

I think at issue here is whether the petitioner’s husband Immigration status has or has not been regularised by the I Immigration Department. Again as I have observed above, this Court is unaware of the decision reached in as far as the petitioner’s husband application is concerned. The same is still pending, and in view of this position, I agree with State Counsel Mwidunda that the application has been filed prematurely. Let the petitioner petition the Court at the appropriate time, that is, after the decision by the Immigration Department’ s has been made. Objection raised upheld in part. • 2 * A.G. BUBESHI JUDGE 23/8/2J|00 a Delivered before Mr Chidomu for Respondent and in absence of the applicant, through served*