Hii itakuwa ni hadithi ya bunuasi hivi huyo Kabudi yuko wapi??kwani yeye ndio alikuwa waziri wakati wa hii kesi ya waswidish anajibu gani sasa??mtafuteni taupe gumzo!. Ndege iyokamatwa Canada ilikuwa mpya na ilikuwa kwa sababu ya Sunlodge kilwa Magufuli walilipa haraka bila kuwakilisha Watanzania Canada ndege za Tanzania zimekamatwa mara mbili na watu tofauti hii sasa Holland ni mara ya tatu na ile ilikamatwa SASerikali ya awamu ya sita ya CCM ile ile imekuwa na upole tofauti na ilivyokuwa chini ya JPM.
Tujikumbushe jinsi serikali ya JPM ilivyocharuka na kugeuka mbogo aliyejeruhiwa kwa matukio ya kudaiwa :
Saturday, November 23, 2019
Ndege nyingine ya Tanzania yakamatwa Canada
Ndege nyingine ya Shirika la Ndege Tanzania (ATCL) aina ya Bombadier ambayo ilikuwa ikijiandaa kuja Tanzania imekamatwa nchini Canada, ambapo aliyefanya hivyo ni yuleyule (Hermanus Steyn, raia wa Afrika Kusini) ambaye aliikamata ndege kama hiyo nchini Afrika Kusini miezi michache iliyopita lakini Serikali ya Tanzania ikamshinda mahakamani.
Hayo yamesemwa leo, Jumamosi Novemba 23, 2019 na Waziri wa Mambo ya Nje ya Nchi na Ushirikiano wa Afrika Mashariki, Prof. Palamagamba Kabudi, wakati akihutubia baada ya Rais John Magufuli kuwaapisha mabalozi wateule watano watakaoiwakilisha Tanzania nchi mbalimbali ambapo hafla hiyo ya imefanyika Ikulu Chamwino Jijini Dodoma.
Mabalozi walioapishwa leo Ikulu Dodoma ni;
Profesa Kabudi amesema kuendelea kwa vitendo hivyo ni hujuma za mabeberu wasiofurahishwa na maendeleo nchini.
- Mhe. Mej. Jen. Mstaafu Asleim Bahati, Balozi wa Tanzania Misri
- Mhe. Jestas Nyamanga, Balozi nchini Ubelgijji
- Mhe. Mohammed Mtonga, Balozi wa Tanzania, UAE
- Mhe. Jilly Maleko, Balozi nchini Burundi
- Mhe. Ali Mwadini, Balozi nchini Saudi Arabia.
“Tulikwenda mahakamani tukamshinda (Afrika Kusini) akakata rufaa na wiki iliyopita tukamshinda tena, huyohuyo sasa amekimbilia Canada amekamata ndege ya Bombardier Q400 ambayo ilikuwa ifike nchini.
“Jambo linalosikitisha ndege zilizokuwa zinatoka Marekani aina ya Dreamliner mbili hazikukamatwa zimefika lakini kila ndege inapotakiwa kuondoka Canada tunashangaa hao matapeli wanajuaje na ndege zinakamatwa.” Amesema Profesa Kabudi.
Amesema Balozi wa Tanzania nchini Canada aliitwa nchini na kuelezwa jinsi nchi isivyofurahishwa na kukamatwa kwa ndege zake kila zinapokaribia kuja kuondoka nchini humo.
“Jana nimemuita Balozi wa Canada, nimeongea naye kinagaubaga na kumwambia, haturidhishwi na tumechukizwa na tabia inayoendelea ya ndege zetu kukamatwa kila zinapotaka kutoka Canada, Mheshimiwa rais tunafikiri kukushauri kuhusu suala la kununua ndege Canada, si wao pekee wanaotengeneza ndege, hata Brazil wanatengeneza.
“Wanasingizia hali ya hewa, wanasimamisha safari zake, kisha wanaikamata. Kule Afrika Kusini tulimshinda kesi ya msingi na rufaa sasa hivi amekimbilia Canada, tayari tumeshapata wanasheria kule Canada na taratibu zote za kutetea ndege yetu zimeanza.
“Hoja yetu kubwa ni kuwaeleza watu wa Canada kwamba amekenda kwenye mahakama za nje ameshindwa na sasa amekimbilia Canada. Sasa tumeelewa kuwa kila unapoleta maendeleo wapo mabeberu wa nje na wengine wa ndani wanaotuhujumu. Wanakesha wakiunguruma ili wairarue nchi hii,” amesema Prof. Kabudi.
Kushikiliwa kwa ndege hiyo kunarejesha kumbukumbu ya ndege nyingine ya Tanzania aina ya Bombardier Q400-8 iliyozuiwa nchini Canada mwaka 2017 kutokana na madai ya Sh87.3 bilioni zilizokuwa zikidaiwa na kampuni ya kikandarasi
Tundu Lissu: Mahakama Zetu Haziaminiki kimataifa
Tundu Lissu: Mahakama Zetu Haziaminiki kimataifa
Benjamini Netanyahu
JF-Expert Member
- Aug 7, 2014
- 95,871
- 116,627
Siyo kimataifa hata hapa ndani hakuna anayeziamini
Benjamini Netanyahu
JF-Expert Member
- Aug 7, 2014
- 95,871
- 116,627
Hakuna mahakama haya ni matawi ya CCM
- Thread starter
- #44
Soma hukumu tribunal ya kimataifa
.The Parties
1.The Claimants are (i) Sunlodges Ltd, a company incorporated under the laws of the territory of the British Virgin Islands ("Sunlodges BVI"); and (ii) Sunlodges (T) Limited ("Sunlodges Tanzania"), a company incorporated under the laws of Tanzania (together, the "Claimants").
2.
The Claimants are represented in this arbitration by:
Mr Matthew Coleman
Mr Thomas Innes
Steptoe & Johnson LLP
5 Aldermanbury Square
London EC2V 7HR
United Kingdom
3.
The Respondent in this arbitration is the United Republic of Tanzania ("Tanzania" or the "Respondent").
4.
The Respondent is represented in this arbitration by:
Dr Clement Mashamba, Solicitor General
Mr Gabriel Malata, Deputy Solicitor General
Mr George Mandepo, Acting Director of Arbitration
Mr Vicent Tangoh, Acting Assistant Director of International Arbitration
Mr Michael Luena, Director of Legal Service
Ms Neisha Shao, State Attorney
Ms Consesa Kahendaguza, State Attorney
Ms Rehema Mtulya, State Attorney
P.O. Box 17554
Dar es Salaam
United Republic of Tanzania
534.
The Respondent has provided the following summary of its costs and expenses:952
| description of the costs | TSHS | USD$ (at the ExchangeRate of (TZS1: 2,350/USD) |
| Tribunal’s Fees | 646,250,000 | 275,000.00 |
| cost of legal REPRESENTATION | ||
| State Attorneys | 1,108,000,000.00 | 471,489.36 |
| Administrative staffs | 582,500,000.00 | 247,872.34 |
| Other Civil Servants Costs | 458,000,000.00 | 194,893.62 |
| Witnesses Costs | 90,000,000.00 | 8,297.87 |
| Travelling costs | 199,757,498.08 | 85,003.19 |
| sub total | 2,438,257,498.08 | 1,282,556.38 |
| Cost of preparation of the application and application on interim measures | 379,700,000.00 | 161,574.47 |
| disbursement costs | ||
| Hyper linking of Documents | 2,500,000.00 | 1,063.83 |
| Printing and photocopy costs | 73,657,040.00 | 31,343.42 |
| Conference room costs | 328,000,000.00 | 139,574.47 |
| Courier costs/Postage costs | 5,000,000.00 | 2,127.66 |
| Material and supplies | 65,202,671.00 | 27,745.82 |
| sub total | 474,359,711.00 | 201,855.20 |
| GRAND TOTAL COSTS | 3,938,567,209.08 | 1,645,986.05 |
535.
According to the Respondent, the Tribunal .......
XV. THE TRIBUNAL’S DECISION
553.For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal finds, declares and awards as follows:
(a) The Respondent’s preliminary objections are dismissed;
(b) The Claimants’ claim that the Respondent has unlawfully expropriated the Claimants’ investments is upheld;
(c) Sunlodges BVI is awarded compensation for the Respondent’s breach of its obligations under the Italy-Tanzania Bilateral Investment Treaty in the amount of USD 8,919,842.45, with interest at 7% per annum, compounded annually from 5 September 2011 until full payment of the award. This amount is payable within 60 days of the notification of this award;
(d) Sunlodges Tanzania is awarded compensation for the Respondent’s breach of its obligations under the Italy-Tanzania Bilateral Investment Treaty in the amount of USD 2,337,162, with interest at 7% per annum, compounded annually from 5 September 2011 until full payment of the award. This amount is payable within 60 days of the notification of this award;
(e) The Respondent’s counterclaims are dismissed;
(f) The Respondent is ordered to bear the costs of arbitration;
(g) The Respondent is ordered to reimburse (i) USD 263,117.94 to the Claimants for the costs met from the Claimants’ share of the deposit; and (ii) USD 4,863.60 for the fees paid directly by the Claimants to the PCA for the designation of an appointing authority and to the appointing authority. These amounts are payable within 60 days of the notification of this award;
(h) The Respondent is ordered to pay to the Claimants USD 432,185, plus a success fee of 7% of the total compensation, in compensation of their legal costs within 60 days of notification of this award, together with simple interest thereon at the rate of 7 % from the 61st day after the date of the notification of this award until the date of full and final payment; and
(i) All other requests for relief are dismissed.
READ MORE IN FULL : Source :
Endelea kutoa elimu
- Thread starter
- #46
HUKUMU NZITO IMETOKA LEO TAREHE 5 DECEMBER 2022.
TAMATI YA NUKUU YA HUKUMU KUHUSU CAG ALIYE OFISINI SASA NA ALIYENGOLEWA PIA RAIS ALIVUNJA KATIBA
IN THE COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC (MAIN REGISTRY) AT DAR ES SALAAM (CORAM: MASOUD, KAKOLAKI, And MASABO, JJJ.)
MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL CAUSE NO. 8 OF 2022 IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA OF 1977 AS AMENDEDAND IN THE MATTER OF THE PUBLIC AUDIT ACT No. 11 OF 2018 AND IN THE MATTER OF BASIC RIGHTS AND DUTIES ENFORCEMENT ACT, CAP. 3 R.E 2002 AND IN THE MATTER OF A PETITION TO CHALLENGE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 6(1) OF THE PUBLIC AUDIT ACT No. 11 of 2018 AS BEING UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND IN THE MATTER OF A PETITION TO CHALLENGE THE ACT OF THE 1st RESPONDENT TO REMOVE THE 4th RESPONDENT FROM THE POSITION OF THE CONTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL AND REPLACE HIM WITH THE 3rd RESPONDENT EVEN THOUGH THE 4th RESPONDENT HAD NEITHER REACHED 60YEARS OF AGE NOR 65 YEARS OF AGE AS BEING UNCONSTITUTIONAL BETWEEN
ZITTO ZUBERI KABWE.....................................PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA..................... 1st RESPONDENT
THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL ......... 2nd RESPONDENT
CHARLES KICHERE ........... 3rd RESPONDENT
PROF. MUSSA JUMA ASSAD .......4th RESPONDENT
.... We were not told a legitimate purpose that the provision and the removal of the fourth respondent from the office save.
We were similarly not told how article 30(2) would save the impugned provision and the removal of the fourth respondent from the office which are violative of article 144 (1) of the Constitution.
We nonetheless do not see any lawful object which was intended to be achieved by the provision, other than introducing a criterion of ensuring removal of the CAG from the office on expiry of the fixed term of five years contrary to the provision of article 144 and the security of tenure of the CAG guaranteed under the Constitution.
In the light of what we have discussed with regard to the saving provision of article 30(2) of the Constitution, we are satisfied and we so hold that neither section 6(1) of the Public Audit Act nor the act of the removal of the fourth respondent from the office is saved by and falls within the purview of article 30 (2) of the Constitution.
When all is said and done, we considered the reliefs sought by the petitioner in the light of the foregoing findings and conclusions.
Since we have found section 6(1) of the Public Audit Act and the removal of the fourth respondent from the office by the first respondent to be unconstitutional for violating article 144(1) of the Constitution, we are inclined to make appropriate declarations to that effect.
As to the appointment of the third respondent into the office, we are satisfied that we cannot in the circumstances hold that the appointment was unconstitutional for reasons very well stated herein above, which would also cater for our resolve to decline to hold that the fourth respondent is the substantive holder of the office of the CAG.
In the upshot of the foregoing reasons and findings, the petition fails in the issue of the appointment of the third respondent in which case we decline to hold ....
the appointment of the third respondent is unconstitutional, and we in the same way decline to hold that the fourth respondent is a substantive holder of the office of the CAG.
It also fails in other issues implied from the reliefs which we did not expressly mention here. However, the petition is allowed in respect of unconstitutionality of the provision of section 6(1) of the Public Audit Act and the unconstitutionality of the removal of the fourth respondent from the office of the CAG pursuant to section 6(1) of the Public Audit Act before attaining the age of sixty five years.
We so hold because the provision of section 6(1) and the removal of the fourth respondent from the office are all violative of article 144 (1) of the Constitution.
Consequently, the provision of section 6 (1) of the Public Audit Act, No. 11 of 2008 is in terms of article 64 (5) of the Constitution herein declared null and void and is hereby struck out forthwith from the Public Audit Act, No. 11 of 2008.
We make no order as to costs as the petition was conducted as a public interest litigation.It is so ordered.DATED and DELIVERED at Dar es Salaam this 5th day of December, 2022
Signed : B.S Masoud
Judge
Signed : J.L Masabo
Judge
Signed : E.E Kakolaki
Judge
READ FULL JUDGEMENT :
Source : Zitto Zuberi Kabwe vs the President of the United Republic of Tanzania & Others (Misc. Cause 8 of 2022) [2022] TZHC 14947 (05 December 2022); | Tanzlii
TAMATI YA NUKUU YA HUKUMU KUHUSU CAG ALIYE OFISINI SASA NA ALIYENGOLEWA PIA RAIS ALIVUNJA KATIBA
IN THE COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC (MAIN REGISTRY) AT DAR ES SALAAM (CORAM: MASOUD, KAKOLAKI, And MASABO, JJJ.)
MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL CAUSE NO. 8 OF 2022 IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA OF 1977 AS AMENDEDAND IN THE MATTER OF THE PUBLIC AUDIT ACT No. 11 OF 2018 AND IN THE MATTER OF BASIC RIGHTS AND DUTIES ENFORCEMENT ACT, CAP. 3 R.E 2002 AND IN THE MATTER OF A PETITION TO CHALLENGE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 6(1) OF THE PUBLIC AUDIT ACT No. 11 of 2018 AS BEING UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND IN THE MATTER OF A PETITION TO CHALLENGE THE ACT OF THE 1st RESPONDENT TO REMOVE THE 4th RESPONDENT FROM THE POSITION OF THE CONTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL AND REPLACE HIM WITH THE 3rd RESPONDENT EVEN THOUGH THE 4th RESPONDENT HAD NEITHER REACHED 60YEARS OF AGE NOR 65 YEARS OF AGE AS BEING UNCONSTITUTIONAL BETWEEN
ZITTO ZUBERI KABWE.....................................PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA..................... 1st RESPONDENT
THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL ......... 2nd RESPONDENT
CHARLES KICHERE ........... 3rd RESPONDENT
PROF. MUSSA JUMA ASSAD .......4th RESPONDENT
.... We were not told a legitimate purpose that the provision and the removal of the fourth respondent from the office save.
We were similarly not told how article 30(2) would save the impugned provision and the removal of the fourth respondent from the office which are violative of article 144 (1) of the Constitution.
We nonetheless do not see any lawful object which was intended to be achieved by the provision, other than introducing a criterion of ensuring removal of the CAG from the office on expiry of the fixed term of five years contrary to the provision of article 144 and the security of tenure of the CAG guaranteed under the Constitution.
In the light of what we have discussed with regard to the saving provision of article 30(2) of the Constitution, we are satisfied and we so hold that neither section 6(1) of the Public Audit Act nor the act of the removal of the fourth respondent from the office is saved by and falls within the purview of article 30 (2) of the Constitution.
When all is said and done, we considered the reliefs sought by the petitioner in the light of the foregoing findings and conclusions.
Since we have found section 6(1) of the Public Audit Act and the removal of the fourth respondent from the office by the first respondent to be unconstitutional for violating article 144(1) of the Constitution, we are inclined to make appropriate declarations to that effect.
As to the appointment of the third respondent into the office, we are satisfied that we cannot in the circumstances hold that the appointment was unconstitutional for reasons very well stated herein above, which would also cater for our resolve to decline to hold that the fourth respondent is the substantive holder of the office of the CAG.
In the upshot of the foregoing reasons and findings, the petition fails in the issue of the appointment of the third respondent in which case we decline to hold ....
the appointment of the third respondent is unconstitutional, and we in the same way decline to hold that the fourth respondent is a substantive holder of the office of the CAG.
It also fails in other issues implied from the reliefs which we did not expressly mention here. However, the petition is allowed in respect of unconstitutionality of the provision of section 6(1) of the Public Audit Act and the unconstitutionality of the removal of the fourth respondent from the office of the CAG pursuant to section 6(1) of the Public Audit Act before attaining the age of sixty five years.
We so hold because the provision of section 6(1) and the removal of the fourth respondent from the office are all violative of article 144 (1) of the Constitution.
Consequently, the provision of section 6 (1) of the Public Audit Act, No. 11 of 2008 is in terms of article 64 (5) of the Constitution herein declared null and void and is hereby struck out forthwith from the Public Audit Act, No. 11 of 2008.
We make no order as to costs as the petition was conducted as a public interest litigation.It is so ordered.DATED and DELIVERED at Dar es Salaam this 5th day of December, 2022
Signed : B.S Masoud
Judge
Signed : J.L Masabo
Judge
Signed : E.E Kakolaki
Judge
READ FULL JUDGEMENT :
Source : Zitto Zuberi Kabwe vs the President of the United Republic of Tanzania & Others (Misc. Cause 8 of 2022) [2022] TZHC 14947 (05 December 2022); | Tanzlii
Walimpeleka Kidando wakadhani watashinda kesi?
Ai
Aibu na fedheha nyingine kwa the Gang
Hapa naona wanafaidi ni wale wanaopata perdiem kwani wanajua kabisa kesi kama hizi hawawezi kushinda lakini hawaishauri serikali kusuluhisha wanataka kupata safari na malipo.Mzalendo yuko wapi kwenye ofisi ya mwanasheria mkuu
- Thread starter
- #50
Ni kweli jedwali hilo la gharama za kuendesha kesi kupinga madai ya mwekezaji, serikali ina tumia mamilioni kupeleka nje maofisa wake kama mawakili wa serikali, wanasheria wake, mashahidi , huduma za ma secretary, kutoa photocopy n.k
Na hapo tunapata picha nzima halisi kubwa za maamuzi ya kukurupuka yanavyoitafuna bajeti ya serikali.
Sunlodge ilichekesha sana mawakili waserikali walichekesha mahakama ya kimataifa ilikuwa ni kituko.Hawawezi kuweka pingamizi tu bila kuwa na concrete sababu ya pingamizi ukisoma hayo mabishano unaweza kucheka na kutoa machozi at the same time kweli Tanzania kuna shida kumbwa ni muhimu kujielimisha na kutumia hekima sio kumshutumu mtu anaetoa elimu bure kama Lisu
monde arabe
JF-Expert Member
- Oct 22, 2017
- 8,781
- 13,444
BUMIJA MOSES
Member
- Aug 27, 2020
- 75
- 85
Hii ni hatari sana. Nashauri wauze Ndege zote kwani zitaishia kukamatwa
Mayor Quimby
JF-Expert Member
- Mar 13, 2021
- 4,950
- 10,977
Nimepitia maelezo ya huo mgogoro kwenye link unabaki unajiuliza hawa watu wanashindwa vipi kwenye kesi kama hizi.
Kwanza kampuni imesajiliwa Virgin Ireland sio Italy, mmliki ndio raia wa Italy; I don’t think that’s how BITs work.
Shamba kwa miaka 11 alijaendelezwa toka 2000 mpaka 2011.
Unapoomba kubadili matumizi ya eneo la serikali kuna kukubaliwa na kunyimwa (in contract terms counter offer, nullifies the original offer) hapo ukinyimwa kibali sio breach.
Eneo ni tajiri kwa resources za cement, wewe umelikalia tu kwa miaka 11 bila ya kuliendeleza, mpaka wananchi wamelivamia. Ametokea mwekezaji (Dangote) utaki kuliachia raisi ana mamlaka ya kubadili land usage na ndie aliefuta kibali fact ambayo aijatajwa wala sheria husika.
Mwekezaji amelinunua eneo kwa $145,000 madai yake mengine amejenga fence ya umeme na airstrip (ambayo most likely ni ya udongo).
Halafu huyo mtu ana zawadiwa $9.5 million, tena yeye alitaka apewe $35 million, kwa value ya damages zipi ata kama alistahili compensation sio hizo.
Dah hawa watu inabidi waanze kusomesha business lawyers nje ya nchi kuanzia bachelor, yaani unasoma vitu mpaka huruma.
Nenda kasome BIT ya Tanzania na Italy alafu utelewa vizuri kwa nini alishinda na akakamata ndege mpya Magufuli akamlipa bila kuwajulisha Watanzania
Mayor Quimby
JF-Expert Member
- Mar 13, 2021
- 4,950
- 10,977
Kampuni imesajiliwa kama ‘private limited company’ (Ltd), maana yake ni separate entity from its owners kwa maana hiyo aijalishi wamiliki ni raia wa wapi. Na kwakuwa kampuni imesajiliwa Virgin Ireland its subject to that nation BIT only, with Tanzania kama ipo.
Ni hivi wapeleke vijana kusoma business law nje ya nchi, ata arguments za serikali ni very weak overall.
- Thread starter
- #58
Wakili Nyaronyo Mwita kicheere kesi ya Prof. Assad na Magufuli asimulia mazito 'CAG' alipwe
Kesi ya kikatiba iliyofunguliwa na Zitto Zuberi Kabwe dhidi ya rais wa Jamhuri ya Muungano John Pombe Joseph Magufuli na wenzie watatu ....
Kwanza liliwekewa pingamizi na wakili mkuu wa serikali kuwa rais hashitakiwi ... lakini Mahakama kuu ikasema rais wa Jamhuri ya Muungano anaweza kustakiwa ili rais kama mtu yaani John P Magufuli ....
Wakili anafafanua na kuweka wazi kuwa jina lake Kicheere maana yake mkuki kwa kikurya hana undugu na CAG Charles Kichere, baada ya hapo anaendelea kufafanua kwa kina kesi hii ya kihistoria ya kikatiba..
Zitto Kabwe alitaka Mahakama itamke kuwa rais hayupo juu ya sheria, pia Zitto Kabwe alitaka mahakama itamke kuwa ....
Source : wakili tv
Kesi ya kikatiba iliyofunguliwa na Zitto Zuberi Kabwe dhidi ya rais wa Jamhuri ya Muungano John Pombe Joseph Magufuli na wenzie watatu ....
Kwanza liliwekewa pingamizi na wakili mkuu wa serikali kuwa rais hashitakiwi ... lakini Mahakama kuu ikasema rais wa Jamhuri ya Muungano anaweza kustakiwa ili rais kama mtu yaani John P Magufuli ....
Wakili anafafanua na kuweka wazi kuwa jina lake Kicheere maana yake mkuki kwa kikurya hana undugu na CAG Charles Kichere, baada ya hapo anaendelea kufafanua kwa kina kesi hii ya kihistoria ya kikatiba..
Zitto Kabwe alitaka Mahakama itamke kuwa rais hayupo juu ya sheria, pia Zitto Kabwe alitaka mahakama itamke kuwa ....
Source : wakili tv
