Fatma Karume Versus Attorney General, Civil Application No.

434/01 of 2019 in the Court of

appeal of Tanzania.
INTRODUCTION
The work based simply and briefly in thin analysis and commentary on the case of Fatma
Karume Versus Attorney General, Civil Application No. 434/01 of 2019 in the Court of
appeal of Revolving around the penalty to suspend advocacy service due to violation of legal
profession
Brief background facts
This was an application for revision made by the applicant intentioned to challenge the decision
of the High Court Main Registry delivered by Feleshi, J.k in Miscellaneous Civil Cause No. 29
of 2018.1

The application aimed at revising the decision of the High Court which suspended the Applicant
from practicing as an Advocate in accordance with Section 22(2) (b) of the Advocates Act. 2 The
Applicant was suspended after being alleged to have been using unprofessional, disrespectfully,
and abusive language which was made towards the Solicitor General and the Attorney General.

In the delivering of the ruling in the Miscellaneous Cause No. 29 of 2018, Feleshi, J.K (as he was
then) ordered suspension of the Applicant from practicing pending reference to the advocate
committee.

Issues for determination

The applicant being aggrieved with the order, applied for revision predicated on the grounds that
the suspension was acted irregularly, improperly, illegally, and incorrectly. In the cause of
hearing the application, the respondents raised four preliminary points on objections the grounds
that;

1. The applicant brought before the Court different parties from those impugned decision.
2. The applicant filed a notice of application for revision instead of notice of motion as
required by the law.
3. The application before the Court has been taken by events; and
4. The impugned decision is not amenable for revision.

1
Miscellaneous Civil Cause No. 29 of 2018.
2
Advocate Act Cap 341 RE 2019
Discussion of Facts and Holding;

Responding to first point on preliminary objection, it was observed that, the remedy of a person
who is not part to the proceeding is an application for revision. The Court appreciated the case of
Jacqueline Ntuyabaliwe Mengi and Others V. Abdiel Reginald Mengi and others, 3 in which
the Court held that the only way for someone who was not party in the matter before the lower
court to challenge the decision, is by way of Revision.

Therefore, it was right for the applicant who was not a party to the proceedings in Miscelleneous
cause no. 29 of 2018 (Supra) to apply for Revision in the Court.

The second point of objection is based on failure to write the title of the document. The
Applicant’s counsels proposed that failure to properly write the title of the notice of motion is a
minor irregularity which does not render the application fatal and therefore incompetent. The
case of Israel Malegesi and Another v. Tanganyika bus service4 was cited to cement the
argument rounding up with the principle of overriding principle.

The fourth preliminary objection was discussed in details in conjunction with the third
preliminary objection. The discussion based on section 22 of the Advocates Act. The issue at
where someone who is aggrieved with the order of the Judge suspending him from practice.
Section 22(2)(b) gives power to a Judge to suspend an advocate pending reference to the High
Court for confirmation or disallowance of such order.

Now the question in this application was whether the applicant’s revision application was the
proper remedy to go with. In this point, the Court pointed out that section 22(2)(b) the applicant
had the avenue to apply for disallowance of such suspension to the High Court.

Therefore, an advocate who has been suspended from practice in accordance with section 22(2)
(a) of the Act has avenue to file an application for disallowance of such suspension and not to file
an application for Revision to the Court of appeal.

CONCLUSION

In general when a lawyer has violated an ethical obligation/duty, the lawyer may be subject to
disciplinary process,there may be a range of different possible penalties such as mere warning,
3
Civil Appeal 130 of 2022
4
Civil Application 172 of 2020)
suspension from practice for a specified period or disqualification. In some instances, the lawyer
concerned may also be subject to criminal liabilities and punishment

REFERENCE

CASES

Jacqueline Ntuyabaliwe Mengi and Others V. Abdiel Reginald Mengi and others

STATUES

Advocate act cap 341 r.e 2019