Dar es Salaam — The High Court has delivered a decisive ruling dismissing a petition filed by three party members against CHADEMA’s leadership, finding the petition incompetent and striking it from the registry.
The petitioners—Said Issa Mohammed, Ahmed Rashid Khamis, and the late Maulidah Anna Komu—had challenged CHADEMA’s allocation of resources between the mainland and Zanzibar, alleging discrimination based on religion and gender.
However, in a judgment delivered on May 28, 2026, Judge Ngunyale found the petition fatally defective on procedural grounds.
The ruling was issued following instructions from the Court of Appeal in April 2026, which had quashed the original High Court injunction that had paralysed the opposition party for nearly a year.
The appellate court had specifically instructed the High Court to determine whether the petition was filed within the prescribed limitation period.
The central issue before the court was whether the petition complied with Order VII Rule 1(e) of the Civil Procedure Code, which requires that a petition must clearly state when the cause of action arose.
In law, a cause of action refers to the specific event or wrongdoing that makes someone feel they have a legal right to sue. In this case, CHADEMA’s legal team argued that the petitioners had failed to meet this mandatory requirement.
READ MORE: Tanzania’s Top Court Frees Opposition Party CHADEMA After 309-Day Ban
“The requirement under Order VII Rule 1(e) of the CPC is not satisfied by a mere reference to scattered dates or periods,” Judge Ngunyale ruled.
“What is required is a clear disclosure of when the cause of action arose so as to enable the Court to determine, from the pleading itself, whether the matter is within time.”
The petitioners had made references to various years and dates, including 2019 and specific dates in 2024, but these were scattered throughout the petition without clearly establishing when the alleged breaches actually commenced.
The judge found this ambiguity to be fatal.
Jurisdictional implications
Judge Ngunyale also emphasised that the failure to disclose when the cause of action arose struck at the root of the court’s jurisdiction, or the court’s legal authority to hear a case.
Since limitation is a jurisdictional matter, the court cannot proceed without clear pleadings establishing the accrual date.
“In the present case, the petition remains ambiguous as to when exactly the cause of action arose,” the judge explained. “The ambiguity goes to the root of the matter, as it denies the Court the ability to ascertain, at the threshold, whether it has jurisdiction to entertain it or not.
“Essentially, limitation is a jurisdictional issue; the Court cannot proceed on the basis of speculation or inference.”
The court rejected the petitioners’ argument that the petition, when read as a whole, sufficiently disclosed the timeframe. It also dismissed their contention that the matter fell within an exception under section 18(1) of the Law of Limitation Act, which exempts trust property disputes from limitation periods.
READ MORE:Tanzania’s Opposition Party CHADEMA Fights Political Ban at Court of Appeal
The petitioners had argued that since CHADEMA’s assets were held in trust, the limitation exception should apply. However, Judge Ngunyale found this argument misconceived. The judge distinguished the petitioners’ case from a previous precedent they had relied upon.
The court noted that the petition encompassed a broader spectrum of grievances beyond trust property, including allegations of discrimination, unequal distribution of resources, and employment disparities.
Additionally, the petition was directed against the General Secretary in his capacity as a party official, not as a trustee in the strict legal sense.
Court’s holding
The High Court upheld CHADEMA’s preliminary objection and found the petition incompetent.
Justice Ngunyale also commented on a minor procedural issue: the case had been incorrectly classified as a Civil Case in the electronic case management system, though it was properly a petition.
The judge noted this mistake was “fairly tolerable because it is not fatal.”
The ruling represents a significant legal victory for CHADEMA. Combined with the Court of Appeal’s April decision quashing the injunction, the opposition party has now cleared two major legal hurdles.
The party can now operate freely without the threat of this particular legal challenge.
READ MORE: High Court Rejects Tundu Lissu’s Bid to Join CHADEMA Civil Case
The dismissal of this petition marks the end of a legal saga that began in April 2025 when the petitioners first filed their case.
The subsequent injunction that froze CHADEMA’s operations and assets had drawn wide criticism regarding the state of political freedoms and judicial independence in Tanzania.
With this specific ruling, the legal framework that had constrained the opposition party’s activities has been entirely dismantled.
