(KIGOMA, TANZANIA) – Court Rejects Bid to Halt Kigoma Parliamentary Election Case
The High Court in Kigoma has rejected an application seeking to suspend indefinitely a petition challenging the outcome of the Kigoma parliamentary election, allowing the case against sitting Member of Parliament Clayton Chipando, popularly known as Baba Levo, to proceed.
The election petition was filed by four registered voters from Kigoma Constituency, Johary Kabourou, Loum Mwitu, Pendo Kombolela and Luma Akilimali. The petition challenges the validity of the election results that declared Mr Chipando the winner and seeks the annulment of the outcome and the calling of a by election. The petition also lists the Kigoma Constituency Returning Officer and the Attorney General as respondents.
The application to halt proceedings was filed by the first respondent, the Kigoma Urban Constituency Returning Officer, together with the Attorney General. They asked the court to suspend the case pending the determination of an intended appeal to the Court of Appeal.
After hearing submissions from both sides, High Court Judge Victoria Nongwa dismissed the application and directed that the case should proceed to the preliminary hearing stage as earlier scheduled. The ruling was delivered on January 9, 2026, and made publicly available on January 12, 2026, through TanzLII, the government platform that publishes court decisions, laws and regulations online.
Judge Nongwa said that after the completion of preliminary procedures, the matter had been scheduled for hearing of preliminary objections on January 9, 2026. On that day, lawyers representing the first and third respondents raised the application seeking to adjourn the case indefinitely.
The first and third respondents were represented by state attorneys Mark Mulwambo, Lesi Majalala, George Kalenda and Erick Rumisha. The second respondent, Mr Chipando, was represented by advocates Daniel Lumenyela and Emmanuel Msasa. The petitioners were represented by advocate John Seka.
In support of the application, Mr Mulwambo told the court that the first and third respondents had filed a notice of intention to appeal to the Court of Appeal on December 23, 2025, together with a request for certified copies of the relevant proceedings. He argued that once a notice of appeal had been filed, the High Court should halt proceedings until the intended appeal, which challenges an earlier ruling that dismissed a preliminary objection, had been heard and determined.
The intended appeal relates to a ruling in which the court rejected an objection seeking to strike out the petition on grounds that it allegedly failed to meet legal requirements. Mr Mulwambo said that although the substantive appeal had not yet been filed, the notice of appeal itself was sufficient to trigger a suspension of proceedings. He cited past court decisions in support of the argument that once a notice of appeal is lodged, the lower court should stop hearing the matter.
Mr Lumenyela, representing Mr Chipando, supported the submissions made by the state attorneys and also relied on decisions of the Court of Appeal.
Opposing the application, Mr Seka argued that the request to suspend the case was barred by law under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act. He cited provisions which prohibit appeals or applications for revision to the Court of Appeal where the matter being challenged does not finally determine the case.
He told the court that the decision being appealed did not dispose of the petition and that the matter was still properly before the High Court. He added that election petitions are matters of public interest and are governed by strict timelines under the Parliamentary Election Petition Rules of 2025.
Mr Seka warned that suspending the case for an unspecified period would effectively extinguish the petition by operation of law after six months, as required under election laws. He said that if the High Court were to adjourn the matter indefinitely, it would lack jurisdiction to extend time, resulting in the loss of the petitioners’ rights with no legal remedy available.
He further argued that reliance on earlier cases cited by the respondents, including a decision involving the Legal and Human Rights Centre, would undermine the law and deny justice in election matters. He said the respondents had failed to demonstrate how they would suffer prejudice if the court proceeded to hear the petition to its conclusion.
Mr Seka added that even if the court were to determine the petition on its merits, the respondents would still retain the right to appeal against the final judgment. Proceeding with the hearing, he said, would assist the Court of Appeal by enabling it to consider a complete record rather than interlocutory issues that the law does not permit to be appealed.
Addressing the notice of intention to appeal, Mr Seka told the court that a notice alone does not guarantee that an appeal will be filed. He used a Kiswahili expression to illustrate his point, saying that intending to do something does not necessarily mean it will happen. He also referred to Rule 27 of the Parliamentary Election Petition Rules of 2025, which requires election petitions to proceed continuously once hearing begins unless valid reasons are recorded by the court.
As an alternative position, Mr Seka urged the court that if it found any justification to adjourn the case, such an adjournment should be for a specific and limited period rather than indefinitely. He said attempting to pursue an appeal on a matter not permitted by law would amount to a waste of time.
In her ruling, Judge Nongwa said the central issue was whether the High Court had jurisdiction to continue hearing the election petition in the presence of a notice of intention to appeal to the Court of Appeal. She acknowledged that the right to appeal is a constitutional right under Article 13(6)(a) of the Constitution of Tanzania, as amended in 2023.
However, the judge said that the right to appeal is subject to conditions set out in law. She agreed with the petitioners that the relevant provisions of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act prohibit appeals or revisions against decisions that do not finally determine a case. She added that the authorities cited by the state attorneys did not relate to election petitions.
Judge Nongwa noted that election laws clearly define the timelines for filing petitions, hearing cases and lodging appeals, as well as the courts with jurisdiction to hear them. However, the law does not provide for appeals against interlocutory decisions in election petitions.
She said that in election cases, only final decisions, such as whether a person was validly elected or has ceased to be a Member of Parliament, are subject to appeal. In the present case, she found that the ruling on the preliminary objection did not conclude the petition and that the matter must therefore proceed to the next stages of hearing.
The judge added that unlike ordinary civil cases, election petitions involve constitutional issues and should not be constrained by excessive technicalities. At the same time, such cases are subject to strict statutory timelines, including a six month limit for their determination.
Following the dismissal of the application to suspend proceedings, Judge Nongwa scheduled January 20, 2026, as the date for the preliminary hearing of the Kigoma parliamentary election petition.
