Lecture outline:

Introduction to Adjudicative/Judicial Powers in Tanzania

Definition of Administrative Tribunals

Other names for/of Administrative Tribunals

Types and Examples of Administrative Tribunals in Tanzania

Legal basis of Administrative Tribunals in Tanzania

Ordinary Courts v/s Administrative Tribunals

Inherent features of Administrative Tribunals

Why Administrative Tribunals? (Advantages)

Criticism of Administrative Tribunals (Disadvantages)

Introduction to Judicial Powers in Tanzania

Traditionally, the duty of determining disputes between individuals in the society is viewed as
an exclusive domain of the ordinary courts of law. The conception of a court as a central
adjudicative body found acceptance in most of the classical scholars' writings such as
Montesquieu (separation of powers) and contemporary jurists such as Dicey (rule of law). The
Constitution of Tanzania, 1977 (RE: 2005) under Article 4(1)(2) vests judicial powers in the
Judiciary of the United Republic and the Judiciary of the Revolutionary government of Zanzibar.
In the same vein, The Constitution of Zanzibar, 1984 (RE: 2006) under Article 5A(2) confers
judicial authority to the Courts of law. Article 107A(1) of the Constitution of Tanzania (supra)
cements and reiterate the above position by providing that;

The Judiciary shall be the authority with final decision in dispensation of justice in the United
Republic of Tanzania.
Though the Constitution of Tanzania (supra) is very clear on which organ should exercise judicial
powers, in reality many judicial functions have come to be performed by the executive, e.g.
imposition of fines, levy of penalty, confiscation of goods, cancellation of licences and etc.

Summary:

Under the Constitution of Tanzania and Zanzibar respectively, the Courts of law have exclusive
jurisdiction in the adjudicative system of the country.

Definition of Administrative Tribunals

There is no universally accepted definition of the term Administrative Tribunals or simply

'tribunal' as per professor Jain. However, jurists, academicians, and administrators (politicians)
have made several attempts to explain the same. Now, let us look at some of the definitions;

Thakker (Takwani, 1998)

Are bodies established to decide various quasi-judicial issues in place of ordinary courts.

Supreme Court of India, 1954.

Are adjudicative bodies constituted, manned and operated by the executive.

L.B. Curzon, Dictionary of Law, 6th Ed., 2002 (Pearson/Longman).

Are bodies outside the hierarchy of the courts with administrative or judicial functions.

Concise Oxford Dictionary, 10th Ed., 2001.

A body established to settle certain types of dispute.

E.W. Susan, Law Dictionary, 2006 (Webster's New World Law Dictionary).

An officer or other judicial body with the authority to pronounce judgment on a matter based
upon the evidence.

Summary:

Administrative Tribunal/Tribunal may be referred to as a person or body of persons or

administrative agency not forming part of the Judiciary with limited statutory powers to
determine disputes and pass binding decisions between individuals, or individuals and officers
in the Department of the government.

Other names for/of Administrative Tribunals

Administrative tribunals are also known as "Quasi-judicial Bodies", or "Statutory Tribunals".

Note:
Why do we call them 'administrative tribunals' or 'quasi-judicial bodies' or 'statutory tribunals'?

They are known as administrative tribunals because as opposed to ordinary courts, these
bodies are composed and chaired by lay administrators (normally, non-lawyers) who are either
appointees' of the President or Minister for a fixed term.

They are referred to as quasi-judicial bodies since they are not full-fledged courts (i.e. not
courts of law properly so called, they have supplemental/complementally role to the Courts).

They are called statutory tribunals simply because they are creations of the statute.

Types and examples of Administrative Tribunals in Tanzania

Administrative tribunals are classified into two (2) major components, i.e. statutory authority,
and statutory tribunal.

(a) Statutory Authority:

This refers to individual holders of public offices who have statutory powers to hear disputes (in
original or appellate jurisdiction/capacity). For example, labour officers and Minister for Labour
in certain circumstances have statutory powers to entertain and make decisions on labour
disputes between an employer and employee/s. **A 'single' person exercises judicial powers.

(b) Statutory Tribunals:

These are adjudicative body or agency established by specific Acts of Parliament. Usually, the
establishing statute will provides for composition (i.e. appointing authority, qualifications and
etc), membership tenure, quorum, procedures and etc. **A 'group' of persons exercises judicial
powers.
Examples;

Military Tribunal (Court Martial),

The Tax Revenue Appeals Board,

The Environmental Appeals Tribunal,

The Fair Competition Tribunal,

The District Land and Housing Tribunal,

The Ward Tribunal and etc.

Legal basis of Administrative Tribunals in Tanzania

The Constitution

of Tanzania (supra) is silent as to the delegation of judicial powers to other organs of the state.
However, by implication (not expressly provided) Article 13(6)(a) of the Constitution of Tanzania
(supra) and Article 12(6)(a) of the Constitution

of Zanzibar (supra) recognise tribunals. The said Articles require "the Court" and "other agency"
to take into account the principle of fair hearing in deciding disputes. Thus, one may argue that
the term, "other agency" refers to administrative tribunals. All in all, it should be noted that
administrative tribunals originates from respective Acts of the Parliament.

The best practice:

The Constitution of Kenya (2010),

Article 1(3)(c);
(1) All sovereign power belongs to the people of Kenya and shall be exercised only in
accordance with this Constitution.

(2) The people may exercise their sovereign power either directly or through their
democratically elected representatives.

(3) Sovereign power under this Constitution is delegated to the following State organs, which
shall perform their functions in accordance with this Constitution––

(a) Parliament and the legislative assemblies in the county governments;

(b) The national executive and the executive structures in the county governments; and

(c) The Judiciary and independent tribunals.

Ordinary Courts v/s Administrative Tribunals

(a) Similarities:

Both are adjudicative machineries (i.e. invested with judicial powers).

Both are governed by Acts of Parliaments.

Both have permanent existence.

(b) Differences:

All courts are tribunals but not all tribunals are courts.

Courts are part and parcel of the judiciary while tribunals are considered part of the executive
(i.e. they have hybrid functions).
Essentially, Courts have unlimited powers to adjudicate, but tribunals have limited adjudicative
powers.

Courts handle disputes objectively, while tribunals deal with disputes subjectively.

Courts can decide the 'vires' (constitutionality/legality/fairness) of a legislation/law, but

tribunals can not do so.

Courts are presided over by officers trained in law, while most of tribunals are chaired and
composed of laymen.

NB:

It should be borne in mind that tribunals are not executive body or administrative Department
of the state.

They are quasi-judicial body and not purely administrative in nature.

Inherent features of Administrative Tribunals

Administrative tribunals are characterized by following features;

Administrative tribunals are constituted by Acts of the Parliament (and not by Government) i.e.
tribunals are statutory creatures'

Decisions of administrative tribunals are judicial rather than administrative. Tribunals decide on
legal issues, in so doing, they confer or restrain rights to individuals.

Administrative tribunals do not deal with cases in which a government is a party. They
adjudicate disputes between businessmen, employer/employee, landlord/tenant, and etc.

Administrative tribunals are not bound by strict rules of procedures, evidences and other legal
technicalities.
They have judicial powers (e.g. to summon witnesses, pass legally enforceable decisions and
etc).

Why Administrative Tribunals? (Advantages).

Legal scholars and policy-makers justify the existence of administrative tribunals by advancing
the following reasons:-

Ordinary courts are very slow, costly (e.g. court and advocate fees), complex and formalistic in
solving disputes. For examples a case may be pending in a court of law for two (2) to five (5)
years. Thus, administrative tribunal emerged to ensure speedy dispensation of justice in vital
areas of the economy.

Note:

Justice delayed is justice denied.

Use of administrative tribunals avoids floodgate of cases in courts of law (i.e. reduce court's
workload/congestion of cases in courts of law).

Administrative tribunals are better placed to take preventive measures, e.g. suspension,
cancellation or revocation of a licence, destruction of contaminated articles, taking care of
perishable goods and etc.

Experience:
Court battle over the so called 'Magufuli fishes'

in 2010.

Administrative tribunals have required expertise, specialty, and experience in their filed of
operations, e.g. Doctors disciplinary bodies/tribunals. Disputes are dealt with persons with an
intimate knowledge and experience of the problems involved.

They avoid legal technicalities/legalistic approach over disputes. Courts are very conservative,
rigid and technical, e.g.

precedent, stare decisis, rules of procedures, evidences, pleadings (use of legalese and legal
documents and etc. They are characterised by an informal atmosphere and procedure.

Ensures effective implementation of socio-economic policies and schemes found in the statute.

Summary:

Cheapness, accessibility, flexibility (freedom from technicalities), expeditious, expertise, and

efficiency

Criticism of Administrative Tribunals (Disadvantages)

Opponents of administrative tribunals cite the following weaknesses;

The practice violates the principle of separation of powers. The main challengers of the use of
administrative tribunals are professor Dicey (rule of law), and Montesquieu (separation of
powers).

Speedy resolution of cases by tribunals may lead to injustices.

Note:

Justice hurried is justice buried.

They have wide discretion thus making their decisions uncertain or unpredictable.

The right to appeal is not always guaranteed. Normally, statutes establishing administrative
have phrases such as, "the decision shall be final and conclusive", "the decision shall not be
appealable", "the decision shall not be subjected to judicial review", and etc. Such kinds of
provisions have come to be known as "ouster clauses", "finality clauses", "protective clauses" or
"preclusive clauses".

They are not always independent of the government influences. For example, Officers of the
Ministry may form part of the panel/quorum, and usually members of the tribunals are
appointees of the President or Minister.

In practice, administrative tribunals violates rules of natural justice i.e. they pass decisions
without; giving reasons, hearing all parties, or adjudicates in matters that they have interest, or
abdicate/sub-delegate their judicial powers to other agencies or person/s.

Maxim:
Nemo judex in causa sua potest (i.e. no one can be a judge in his own cause); Audi alteram
partem (i.e. hear both sides); Delegatus non potest delegare (i.e. delegated powers can not be
delegated any further).

Tribunals are manned by laymen and thus advocates are not allowed to appear.

Subordination of the ordinary courts of law.

NB:

The aspect of "Judicial control of administrative tribunal" will be covered under the caption,
"Judicial control of Administrative Action/s (i.e. Judicial Review)".

H/Work:

Show the differences between "administrative tribunals", "commission of inquiry" and

"disciplinary committees".

Name and explain any ten (10) administrative tribunals in Tanzania.

References:

[Available at the law collection, UDSM - Main Library]

Thakker, C.K (Justice Takwani) (1998) Lectures on Administrative Law. (Law KPN. T45). **Read,

pp.192-233.

Wade (1998) Administrative Law. (Law KD 4879. W3). **Read, pp. 776-824.