1.0 MEANINGS OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS.

 Administrative tribunals in other words is called quasi-judicial bodies since they are not
full-fledged courts this is to say not courts of law properly so called, they have
supplemental or complementally role to the Courts also administrative tribunals is
called statutory tribunals simply because they are creations of the statute. 1
 Administrative tribunals are bodies other than courts of law that are given the power to
resolve disputes and to decide cases2.
 Administrative tribunals Are bodies established to decide various quasi-judicial issues in
place of ordinary courts3.
 Administrative tribunals Are adjudicative bodies constituted, manned and operated by
the executive or Are bodies outside the hierarchy of the courts with administrative or
judicial functions4.
 In the case of onuoha v okafor CJ defined as “administrative tribunals as a person or
body of persons exercising judicial functions by common laws and statutes. A tribunals is
subjected first ordinary laws, secondly statutes or instruments giving it jurisdiction and
third the rules of natural justice and fair hearing.” 5 Administrative tribunal it can be
referred to as a person or body of persons or administrative agency not forming a part
of the judiciary with limited statutory powers to determine disputes and pass binding
decisions between individuals or individuals and officers in the department of the
government.

The reasons of why we have administrative tribunals or quasi-judicial bodies or statutory

tribunals simply because it opposed to ordinary courts, these bodies are composed and chaired
by lay administrators which are normally and non-lawyers who are either appointees of the
President or Minister for a fixed term.

1.1 TYPES OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS.

1
Administrative law notes, by c.k takwani
2
Cuzon, dictionary of law,1994,p387
3
wade
4
Durga Shankar Mehta v raghuraj singh,AIR 1954 SC 520

5
onuoha v okafor
Administrative tribunals are categories into two forms which is statutory authority, and
statutory tribunal.

1.2 STATUTORY AUTHORITY.

This refers to individual holders of public offices who have statutory powers to hear disputes
like in original or appellate jurisdiction. For example, labor officers and Minister for Labor in
certain circumstances have statutory powers to entertain and make decisions on labor disputes
between an employer and employees. Also In statutory authorities a single person are
exercised judicial power

1.3 STATUTORY TRIBUNALS.

These are adjudicative body or agency established by specific Acts of Parliament. Usually, the
establishing statute will provides for composition this is to say appointing authority,
qualifications, membership tenure, quorum, procedures.

Generally in statutory tribunals a group of persons exercises judicial powers for examples
Military Tribunal (Court Martial), The Tax Revenue Appeals, The environmental Appeals
Tribunal, Fair Competition Tribunal, District Land and Housing Tribunal, and Ward Tribunal.

1.4 THE MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ARE AS FOLLOWS 6:

i. Administrative Tribunals is the creation of a statute. This means that administrative

tribunals or quasi-judicial are the statutoty origin comes from the statutes example the
constitution of the united republic of Tanzania of 1977
ii. An Administrative Tribunals is vested in the judicial power of the State and thereby
performance quasi-judicial functions as distinguished from pure administrative
functions.
iii. Administrative Tribunals is bound to act judicially and follow the principles of natural
justice.
iv. It has some of the trapping of a court and is required to act openly, fairly and
impartially.

6
Administrative law notes, by c.k takwani.
 v. An administrative Tribunal is not bound by the strict rules of procedure and evidence
prescribed by the civil procedure court.
vi. With regard to procedural matters administrative tribunal possess powers of the court
for instance to summons witness, to administer oath and to compel production of
document.
vii. Are independent and they are not subject to any administrative interferences in the
discharge of their judicial or quasi-judicial function.

1.5 ADVANTAGES OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS.

The things to be discovered here or to understand are why we have administrative tribunal.
According to Legal scholars and policy makers identify the following advantages of the
administrative tribunals.

i. Ordinary courts are very slow, costly for example court and advocate fees are complex
and formalistic in solving disputes. Other examples in case may be pending in a court of
law for two (2) to five (5) years. Thus, administrative tribunal emerged to ensure speedy
dispensation of justice in vital areas of the economy.
Use of administrative tribunals avoids floodgate of cases in courts of law .this is to say
that it reduce court's workload or congestion of cases in courts of law
ii. Administrative tribunals are better placed to take preventive measures, examples
suspension, cancellation or revocation of licenses, destruction of contaminated articles,
taking care of perishable goods.
iii. Administrative tribunals have required expertise, specialty, and experience in their field
of operations, for examples. Doctors disciplinary bodies or tribunals. Disputes are dealt
with persons with an intimate knowledge and experience of the problems involved.
iv. They avoid legal technicalities or legalistic approach over disputes. Courts are very
conservative, rigid and technical, For instance precedent, stare decisis, rules of
procedures, evidences, pleadings the use of legalese and legal documents and they are
characterized by an informal atmosphere and procedure.
 v. To ensure effective implementation of socio economic policies and schemes found in
the statute.

1.6 CRITICISM OR DIS ADVANTAGES OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS.

I. The right to appeal is not always guaranteed. Normally, statutes establishing

administrative have phrases such as, "the decision shall be final and conclusive", "the
decision shall not be appealable", "the decision shall not be subjected to judicial
review", Such kinds of provisions have come to be known as "ouster clauses", "finality
clauses", "protective clauses" or "preclusive clauses".
II. They are not always independent of the government influences. For example, Officers of
the Ministry may form part of the panel or quorum, and usually members of the
tribunals are appointees of the President or Minister.
III. Administrative tribunal violates rules of natural justice. Like they pass decisions without;
giving reasons, hearing all parties, or adjudicates in matters that they have interest, or
abdicate or sub-delegate their judicial powers to other agencies or persons.
IV. Administrative tribunals Speedy resolution of cases by tribunals may lead to injustices as
justice hurried is justice buried.
V. They have wide discretion thus making their decisions uncertain or unpredictable.
VI. Tribunals are manned by laymen and thus advocates are not allowed to appear.

1.7 LEGAL BASIS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS IN TANZANIA.

The Constitution of Tanzania is silent as to the delegation of judicial powers to other organs of
the state. However, by implication which means that not expressly provided Article 13(6) (a) of
the Constitution of united republic of Tanzania 7 and Article 12(6) (a) of the Constitution of
Zanzibar8 recognize tribunals.

The said Articles require "the Court" and "other agency" to take into account the principle of
fair hearing in deciding disputes. Thus, one may argue that the term, "other agency" refers to

7
Article 13(6) (a) of the Constitution of united republic of Tanzania
8
Article 12(6)(a) of the Constitution of Zanzibar
administrative tribunals. All in all, it should be noted that administrative tribunals originates
from respective Acts of the Parliament.

1.8 WAYS OF CHALLENGING THE DECISION OF TRIBUNALS.

There are various ways of challenging the tribunals or administrative tribunals that’s are as
follows.

i. By Appeal. This is a constitutional right which has to be exercised subject to the statute
that establishes a particular tribunal. Where the statute provide for a right to appeal
against the decision of a tribunal then such right can be exercised where a person is
aggrieved by the decision made by the tribunal. Sometimes a statute may provide right
to an appeal not to the ordinary court of law but to the higher public authority whose
decision shall be final and conclusive. In other cases right to appeal is made to the
ordinary court of law.
ii. By Judicial Review. Some statutes which establish administrative tribunals grant them
power to hear and give final decisions on the matters brought before them. In such
circumstances they tend to oust the jurisdiction of ordinary court to determine such
particular matters by way of appeal.
iii. By revision. Decisions made by administrative tribunals can be revised by higher
authorities or ordinary courts of law upon application from the party which is
dissatisfied with the decision of the particular tribunal. Sometimes the law may grant
supervisory power which gives mandate to the court to call for the records of
proceedings a particular tribunal and satisfy itself with the way the decision was
reached. Such revisory power can go to the extent of reversing the decision which was
made.
iv. By reference. Sometimes the tribunal on its own motion and where the law provides for
the same may refer its decision to the higher authority or ordinary court of law so that
the latter can satisfy itself on the way proceedings were conducted or seek for the
proper interpretation of the law.
1.9 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TRIBUNALS AND ORDINARY COURTS. 9

i. Courts of law form part of the traditional judicial system which is one of the organs of
the state while Tribunals are agencies, statutory bodies, formed to deal with specific
matters which mainly fall under the executive arm of the government.
ii. The jurisdiction of ordinary courts to determine civil suits extends to all suits of civil
nature except where expressly barred by the law while tribunals have jurisdiction on to
determine specific matters statutorily conferred. However not all courts have general
jurisdiction. Some have been established to determine specific matters, for example
Labor Court which is established under the Labor Institutions Act, 2004 10.
iii. The judicial personnel like judges in ordinary court are free from the vices of the
executive while in administrative tribunals are entirely in the hands of the Government.
iv. The court of law has power to determine the ‘vires’ of the legislation while
administrative tribunals cannot.
v. The courts of law are composed with well trained personnel in the field of law and these
are Judges, magistrates and advocates who appear before the court while Tribunals are
not necessarily require such composition of well-trained legal personnel.
vi. Courts of law are strictly bound by rules of evidence and procedures while Tribunals are
not always bound by strict rules of evidence and procedures unless where the statute
that establishes a particular tribunal provide for the same.
vii. Courts of law have powers to control the exercise of powers of the tribunals through
Judicial Review, Revision and Appeal.

1.10 SIMILARITIES BETWEEN TRIBUNALS AND NORMAL COURTS.

i. They both are governed by the principle of neutrality and impartiality while deciding the
dispute before them. Although in some circumstances administrative tribunal can be an
interested party to dispute in which it is adjudicating, however in all such circumstances,
the duty to act judicially is there for the purpose of ensuring that justice prevails

9
Administrative law notes, by c.k takwani
10
Labor Institutions Act, 2004
 ii. They both derive their legality from various statutory instruments and the Constitution
of United Republic of Tanzania, 197711 as amended time to time.
iii. They both are adjudicatory bodies which deal with disputes between parties and in so
doing they determine the rights and liabilities of the parties in disputes.
iv. Given clear reason for decision.
v. All parties present evidence and cross examine witness or test accuracy of evidence
against them.
vi. Both all parties are informed of case.
vii. Both apply laws and consider relevant laws.

1.11 RATIONALE BEHIND EMERGENCE OF TRIBUNALS.12

i. Modern governmental activities give rise to many disputes which cannot be solved by
applying objective legal principles or standard. This has necessitated the emergence of
Tribunals
ii. A need to have bodies which can take preventive measures.
iii. A need to have bodies which can effectively enforce preventive measures taken by
administrative authorities.
iv. Since administrative organs are also policy makers, then it is necessary to have bodies
which can easily enforce departmental policies and other relevant factors. Hence
administrative tribunals are one of such bodies which can effectively enforce
administrative policies.
v. A need to have institutions which have specialized jurisdiction, that is, to have
adjudicatory bodies which shall be composed of persons who are experts in matters
relating to the nature of disputes intended to be solved by a particular body or tribunal.
In other words one can say that the idea of expertise is linked to the type of decision
which tribunals are going to make.

11
Constitution of United Republic of Tanzania, 1977
12
Administrative law in Tanzania, prepared by mwakisiki mwakisiki, 2017
 vi. Flexibility in their proceedings. When carrying out their decisions, tribunals must both
administer a clear set of rules and maintain a high measure of flexibility in their
decisions so that justice in individual cases prevails over mere consistency.
vii. The ordinary court system has proved inadequate to be able to deal with all the cases
brought before it. There are many cases which are pending before the courts. It is
therefore for tribunals to be the other centers of adjudication to reduce number of
cases which are instituted in ordinary courts of law.
VIII. Cheapness, accessibility and freedom from technicality.

2.0 INQUIRIES

Meaning of inquiries has been defined as a well-publicized inquisition on a grand scale, which
may not be concerned with government policy and administration only but for the most part,
with the investigation of suspected impropriety or negligence in public life.

The aim of setting up public inquiries is to satisfy the public that a proper investigation has been
made into a matter about which there is a great deal of public disquiet. Hence the forms of
inquiry have in common is the independence of the person who conduct the inquiry and writes
the report. Different forms may be adopted. They must be sitting in public or in private.

Inquiries have become the standard device for giving fair hearing to objectors before the final
decision is made on some questions of government policy affecting rights or interests of
citizens.

In Tanzania, the jurisdiction of inquiries has been extended for the purpose of embarking on
any administrative policy which has serious political consequences. Inquiries have become the
standard device for giving fair hearing to objectors before the final decision is made on some
questions of government policy affecting rights or interests of citizens.

The outcome of the inquiry may result in legislation being introduced or some of the laws being
amended or repealed. Not all the recommendations made by any inquiry shall be implemented
by the authorities concerned. This is to say, the decision to follow or not to follow what the
report of the inquiry says lies on the authority which established such particular inquiry.

2.1 TYPES OF INQUIRIES.

Inquiries it is basically divided into two kinds which as follows.

2.2 Statutory Inquiries.

Statutory inquiries is a formalized version of the fair hearing which required by common law
according to the principles of natural justice. It is a framework within which natural justice can
operate13.

Also statutory inquiries are those which are provided under various statutes for the purpose of
14
facilitating proper decision making. For example, the Public Service Act, 2002 provides that
before any disciplinary action is taken against a public servant there must be an inquiry
undertaken to establish whether the allegations put against the public servant are true.

2.3 Non-statutory Inquiries.

These are such inquiries which are made depending on the need arising in the society. Where a
public authority considers it for public interest to conduct an inquiry, then a commission is
formed to investigate and collect necessary information which shall form a report to be
submitted to the authority concern for further considerations. Such report is normally not
binding to the authority to which it is submitted.

Also in non-statutory inquiries in order to have this there should be important things like
internal investigation or in other word we can say a review, royal commissions, flexible
procedures, it should conducted in private and the witnesses’ compliance is voluntary

2.4 THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INQUIRIES AND TRIBUNALS15

13
Administrative law in Tanzania, B.D CHIPETA
14
Public Service Act, 2002
15
Administrative law in Tanzania, prepared by mwakisiki mwakisiki, 2017
 i. Tribunals are more permanent than inquiries
ii. Tribunals adjudicate independent cases of the same nature; while inquiries investigate
a particular subject matter.
iii. Tribunals are set up under different statutes; while inquiries are usually set up under the
same law.
iv. Tribunals’ decisions may be final; whereas inquiries are usually set up to make
recommendations.
v. A tribunal may be composed of a single individual; while an inquiry is in most cases
made up of a body of persons.
vi. An inquiry is highly publicized; whereas in the case of a tribunal, it is only the parties to
be affected by its decision that take part in the proceedings.
vii. Legal representation of interests is often made before tribunals than inquiries.
viii. Tribunals give judicial decisions; while inquiries are mere preliminaries to political
decisions.
ix. Tribunals may in most cases act judicially and are mostly expected to observe the rules
of natural justice; while the powers of inquiries are mostly quasi-judicial.

2.5 SIMILARITIES BETWEEN TRIBUNALS AND INQUIRIES16

i. Both can be subjected to supervisory powers of the ordinary courts of law.

ii. The proceedings of both can be subject of judicial review by the High Court.
iii. Both have duty to act in fairness and within their powers.
iv. The composition of both does not necessarily require persons who are lawyers.
v. They are both not bound by strict rules of evidence and procedures.

16
Administrative law in Tanzania, prepared by mwakisiki mwakisiki, 2017