SANAI MURUMBE AND ANOTHER v MUHERE CHACHA 1990 TLR 54

Facts

While 145 head of cattle of the respondent and another person were being moved from Mugumu to Mugeta village in Bunda District they disappeared at Singisi village, Serengeti District. It was sought to order the Singisi villagers to compensate the respondent. Consequently an inquiry was instituted in the District Court of Mugumu under section 15 of the Stock Theft Ordinance, Cap.422. The inquiry was instituted before seizing the cattle. Being dissatisfied with the proof of the claim the District Court dismissed it. As that decision was not appealable the aggrieved party applied for and was granted an order of certiorari by the High Court. After quashing the proceedings the judge went further and ordered the villagers to compensate the respondent. On appeal the compensation order was attacked. It was submitted that the judge was wrong in treating the matter as if it was an appeal. It was further contended that the judge acted beyond the scope of his jurisdiction. The appeal court considered the matter raised and also the proper procedure to be followed under section 15 of the Stock Theft Ordinance. 

Held: (i) An order of certiorari is one issued by the High Court to quash the proceedings of 

and decision of a subordinate court or tribunal or public authority where, among others, there is no right of appeal, 

 (ii) the High Court is entitled to investigate the proceedings of a lower court or tribunal or public authority on any of the following grounds apparent on the record: 

(a) taking into account matters which it ought not to have taken into account.

(b) not taking into account matters which it ought to have taken into account.

(c) lack or excess of jurisdiction.

(d) conclusion arrived at is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever come to it.

(e) rules of natural justice have been violated; 

(f) illegality of procedure or decision; 

 (iii) the judge properly granted the order of certiorari because the decision of the subordinate court was contrary to the evidence and that the magistrate was biased against the respondent, the order was also to issue because the procedure under section 15 of the Stock Theft Ordinance was not complied with.

(iv) under section 15 of the Stock Theft Ordinance Cap. 422 an authorized officer is 

required to seize cattle from the village suspected of cattle rustling equal to the number of cattle stolen and then to apply for an inquiry. That was not done in this case.

(v) the compensation order for the 145 head of cattle given by the judge was contrary to the existing law.