TANZANIA LAW AND ORDER: 2012

Saturday, September 29, 2012

CHAPTER 213 THE BUSINESS NAMES (REGISTRATION) ACT [PRINCIPAL LEGISLATION] ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS

CHAPTER 213
THE BUSINESS NAMES (REGISTRATION) ACT
[PRINCIPAL LEGISLATION]
ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
Section
Title
1. Short title.
2. Interpretation.
3. Registrar and deputies.
4. Firms and persons to be registered.
5. Registration by nominee, etc.
6. Manner and particulars of registration.
7. Statement to be signed by persons registering.
8. Time for registration.
9. Restriction on registration of certain business names.
10. Registration not to authorise use.
11. Registration of changes in firm.
12. Rectification of the register in certain cases.
13. Penalty for default in registration.
14. Penalty for carrying on business under unauthorised name.
15. Disability of persons in default.
16. Penalty for false statements.
17. Duty to furnish particulars to the Registrar.
18. Registrar to file statement and issue certificate of registration.
19. Index to be kept.
20. Removal of names from register.
21. Inspection of statements registered.
22. Power of Minister to make rules.
23. Publication of true names, etc.
24. Offences by corporations.
SCHEDULE
CHAPTER 213
THE BUSINESS NAMES (REGISTRATION) ACT
An Act to provide for the registration of business names.
[21st February, 1930]
Ords. Nos.
1 of 1930
37 of 1955
Acts Nos.
4 of 1975
13 of 1991
1. Short title
This Act may be cited as the Business Names (Registration) Act.
2. Interpretation In this Act unless the context otherwise requires–
"business" includes profession;
"business name" means the name or style under which any business is carried
on, whether in partnership or otherwise;
"firm" means an unincorporate body of two or more individuals, or one or more
individuals and one or more corporations, or two or more corporations, who have
entered into partnership with one another with a view to carry on business for profit;
"foreign firm" means any firm, individual or corporation whose principal place of business is not situated within Tanzania;

REVEREND CHRISTOPHER R. MTIKILA V THE UNITED REPUBLUC OF TANZANIA APPLICATION NO. 011/2011

Application No. 009/2011 Tanganyika Law Society & Legal and Human Rights Centre v. The United Republic of Tanzania

Application No. 009/2011
Tanganyika Law Society & Legal and Human Rights Centre
v. The United Republic of Tanzania
Summary of facts
1. The Applicants submit that the Respondent State is in violation of Article 2 and
13(1) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and articles 3 and
25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a violation
that was institutionalized in 1992, at the onset of multiparty politics in the country.
2. According to the Applicants, in 1992, the National Assembly passed the Eighth
Amendment to the Constitution and prescribed a requirement for membership to
and sponsorship by a political party for all persons running for Presidential,
Parliamentary and Local Government elections. They submit further that in 1993,
a certain Reverend Mtikila challenged the 8
th
constitutional amendment, and on
16
th
October 1994, the Respondent tabled a bill, the 11
th
Constitutional
Amendment, seeking to nullify the right of independent candidates to contest
Presidential, Parliamentary and Local Government elections.
3. According to the Applicants, on 24 October 1994, the High Court found in favour
of Reverend Mtikila, and declared that it was lawful for independent candidates to
contest elections. On 2 December 1994, the National Assembly passed the
Eleventh Constitutional Amendment, whose effect was to the position of the 8
th
amendment, thus reversing the High Court decision of 24 October 1994.
4. In 2005, Reverend Mtikila again challenged the Eleventh Amendment, and in
May 2006, the High Court again ruled in his favour, stating that the impugned
amendments were violative of the democratic values and principles enshrined in
the Constitution. 5. In 2009, the Respondent appealed the decision of the High Court to the Court of
Appeal, (the highest Court in the country), and in June 2010, the Court of Appeal,
reversed the decision of the High Court.
6. The Applicants note that the effect of the violation is that a great majority of
Tanzanians who do not belong to political parties have been discriminated
against and denied the opportunity to take part in public affairs or from being
elected.

Applications No 009&011 – Tanganyika Law Society and The Legal and Human Rights Centre and Reverend Christopher Mtikila V. The United Republic of Tanzania

CASE NOTE
REVEREND CHRISTOPHER R. MTIKILA V THE UNITED REPUBLUC OF TANZANIA
APPLICATION NO. 011/2011
A. THE PARTIES
1. The Applicant, Reverend Christopher R. Mtikila, is a citizen of the United
Republic of Tanzania. He is represented by Counsels, Setondji Adjovi, Mary R.
Birdi, Deogratias M. Njau and Megan R. Thompson, all of Etudes Vihode of
Benin, Charles Adeogun-Phillips of Charles Anthony LLP (Nigeria) and Francis
Dako of Cabinet Francis Dako, Benin.
2. The Respondent is the United Republic of Tanzania and is a State Party to the
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Charter) having ratified it
on 18 February 1984 and in respect of which it entered into force on 21 October
1986. The Respondent is a State Party to the Protocol to the African Charter on
Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human
and Peoples’ Rights (Protocol Establishing the Court) which it ratified on 6
February 2006. The applicant alleges that the Respondent has deposited the
Declaration required under Article 34(6) of the Protocol Establishing the Court
allowing individuals and NGOs with Observer Status before the Commission to
directly access the Court. Further, the Respondent is also a State Party to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) since 11 June 1976.
3. The Respondent is represented by:
1. Mr. George M. Masaju, Deputy Attorney General
Attorney General’s Chambers
Dar es Salaam
2. Mr. Mathew Mwaimu, Director of Constitutional Affairs and Human Rights
Attorney General’s Chambers
Dar es Salaam
3. Mrs. Irene Kasyanju-Assistant Director and Head of Legal Affairs Unit
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation
Dar es SalaamPage 2 of 6
4. Ms. Sarah Mwaipopo, Senior State Attorney
Attorney General’s Chambers
Dar es Salaam
5. Mrs. Alesia Mbuya, Senior State Attorney
Attorney General’s Chambers
Dar es Salaam
6. Mr. Benedict Msuya Second Secretary/Legal Officer
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation
Dar es Salaam

Tanganyika Farmers Association Limited v Njake Oil Company Limited (Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2005) [2006] TZCA 6 (27 July 2006)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM
(CORAM: MROSO. J.A., MSOFFE, J.A., And KAJI. J.A.^
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 40 OF 2005
THE TANGANYIKA FARMERS ASSOCIATION LIMITED      APPELLANT
         VERSUS
NJAKE OIL COMPANY LIMITED        RESPONDENT
(Appeal from the Judgment of the High Court
of Tanzania - Commercial Division
at Dar es Salaam)
(Kimaro, J.)
dated the 14^th December, 2004
in Commercial Case No. 18 of 2004
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
14 July & 3 August 2006
KAJI, 3.A.:

In this appeal, the appellant, Tanganyika Farmers Association Limited, is challenging the decision of the High Court at Dar-es-Salaam Commercial Division (Kimaro, J.) dated 14.12.2004 in Commercial Case No. 18 of 2004 in which the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent Njake Oil Company Limited Shs. 63,525,763/= being loss of profit, remaining use value of four fuel tanks, three pumps and an electricity generating machine emanating from an agreement which was terminated prematurely.

•*;..

The appellant is advocated for by Mr. Lukwaro, learned counsel, and the respondent is represented by Mr. Mkoba, learned counsel. Both counsel also appeared for the respective parties in the trial court.

At the trial the respondent company which was the plaintiff, had adduced evidence to the effect that, by a written contract dated 1.8.2002 (Exh. PI), the appellant and the respondent entered into an agreement in which the latter would supply fuel and related products at the former's petrol station situate at Karatu for a period of five (5) years. Before the supply of the said fuel and related products, the contract required the respondent, at its costs and expenses, to provide to the appellant and install necessary equipments and machinery required to run and operate the station. The respondent claimed to have made some renovations and improvements and to have installed four fuel tanks, three pumps and an electric generator to the station.

In August, 2003, the contract was terminated prematurely. Each party blamed the other for the breach. Consequently the respondent sued the appellant for Shs. 88,348,874.37 being loss of profit, remaining use value of four fuel tanks, three pumps, an electric

generator, unpaid fuel and general damages. The trial court held the appellant responsible for the breach of the contract. The respondent was awarded Shs. 63,525,763/=. \
The appellant was dissatisfied; hence this appeal.

In a rather verbose memorandum of appeal Mr. Lukwaro, learned counsel, preferred twelve (12) grounds of appeal. However at the hearing he abandoned the last ground after realizing that it ought not to have been listed as a ground of appeal.

In arguing grounds Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 together Mr. Lukwaro contended that, Annexture 1 which was supposed to specify the necessary equipments which the respondent was required to provide at its own costs and expenses was not annexed to the contract. It therefore remained unclear which equipments the respondent was required to provide and whether the respondent complied with this condition of the contract satisfactorily as provided under clause 4 of the contract Exh. PI, asserted the learned counsel. In that respect it is the learned counsel's submission that the learned trial judge erred

The Law School of Tanzania buildings

http://www.lst.ac.tz/index.php

Sunday, April 8, 2012

A STRATEGY STATEMENT OF THE LAW REFORM COMMISSION OF TANZANIA 2009-2013

This Strategy is yet another Strategic Plan of the Law Reform
Commission of Tanzania (LRCT) after its initial Strategic Plan for
three year period of 2003-2006, which was followed by another
Medium Term Strategic Plan for three year period covering the
financial year 2006/2007 to financial year 2008/2009. It is however,
the first plan of the Commission which was developed through the
active participation of a wider spectrum of stakeholders. It covers the
period of 2009-2013 inclusive. The statement reflects the views of
the Commission and Stakeholders on what needs to be done to
maximize the central role and contribution of the Commission in
relation to law reform and to ensure that the organization operates
to optimum efficiency and effectiveness and makes the best use of
available resources.
The statement has been drawn up after extensive consultation
with the members of staff of the Commission and it incorporates a
number of important points made by them during this consultation
process. The emphasis in drawing up the Statement is to ensure that
it had a real meaning for the organization and its staff. It had to
represent the key priorities of the Commission for 2009-2013. It had
to set clear responsibilities and accountabilities for the achievement
of these priorities.

The Government of the United Republic of Tanzania with
the support of Multi-donors is implementing a programme
for Business Environment Strengthening for Tanzania
(BEST) with the objective of enhancing enterprise growth
and competitiveness, through the establishment of a simpler,
more enabling, appropriate and sustainable regulatory
environment for business in Tanzania. The establishment of
the programme was approved by the Cabinet in July 2002 and
the implementation started in February, 2004. Initially, the
programme was funded by Danish International Development
Agency (DANIDA), UK Department for International
Development (DFID), Swedish International Development
Cooperation Agency (SIDA) and the Netherlands Embassy.
However, in January, 2006 the World Bank joined the
programme resulting into restructuring of the same which
became; Private Sector Competitiveness Project (PSCP) and is
comprised of three components, namely;

The Wake of Information Security in Tanzania

ABSTRACT.

Information age has turned information to be a precious resource. And thus any organization which wishes to compete be it a private company or public corporation the question of Information security must be given priority. Such wake for information security has taken pace in Tanzania. This paper tries to highlight that wake in Tanzania.

The initiative for information security in Tanzania can historically be linked with the 1970s incidence, where in 1970s there was a plan to computerize the whole Tanzania- Government accounting system using the computer model ICL 1900 which was located at the Ministry of Finance headquarter in Dar es salaam. The project terribly failed and has scrapped after a heavy loss. For two consecutive years the government could not tell how much money it had spent or collected as revenue.[1]

As a response to that in 1974 the law was passed to ban importation of computers and related equipments after suffering heavy financial losses.

Though later in 1980s the computer importation was allowed in the country under the scrutiny of the Advisory Committee which had a duty to grant import licences.[2]

With the coming of mobile phones and internet, ICT application in Tanzania got many clients. And the concern of about information security was and yet is more alarming.

There are hackers, malicious programs like computer viruses, worms, just to mention a few.

Attackers are assumed to have various levels of expertise, resources, and motivation. Attackers can either be insiders or outsiders. Relevant expertise may be in general semiconductor technology, software engineering, hacker techniques, or the specific system. Resources may range from personal computers and inexpensive card reading/coding devices to very expensive and sophisticated engineering test, measurement devices, and replica of Company vending devices. They may also include software routines, some of which are readily available on the Internet. Motivation may include economic reward, resentment, or notoriety of defeating high-grade security. [3]Given sufficient time and expertise, any particular company vending application software can be compromised.

Threat to Security

The PP is required to counter threats that may be broadly categorized as:

- Threats addressed by the system:

- Threats associated with physical attack on the system

- Threats associated with logical attack on the system

- Threats associated with control of access

- Threats associated with unanticipated interactions

- Threats regarding the security module

- Threats that monitor informational[4]

Tanzania Electronic and Postal Communication Act 2009

Electronic and Postal Communication Act 2009 kwa lugha ya kigeni. Sheria hii imetungwa kwa lengo la kuhakiksisha sheria inatambua maendeleo mapya yaliyopo na yanayoendelea kujitokeza katika sekta ya mawasiliano ya kielektoniki.

Kwa kutambua hivyo sheria Ya Mawasiliano ya mwaka 1993 imefutwa na sheria hii mpya ya mwaka 2009.

Sheria mpya inatoa mamlaka kwa Mamlaka ya Mawasiliano Tanzania au kwa lugha ya kigeni Tanzania Communications Regulatory Authority (TCRA) kuhusu masuala mbalimbali ya mawasiliano ikiwa pamoja na kutoa leseni na kutunga sheria ndogo ndogo (regulations) mbali mbali katika sekta ya mawasiliano.

Ingawaje sheria hii mpya ainisha makosa mbali mbali ya kisheria katika sekta ya mawasiliano, lakini makosa hayajawekwa kwa mapana zaidi na hakuna muunganiko wa wazi kati ya sheria hii mpya na sheria ya Makosa ya Jinai (Penal Code Cap 16). Kwa mantiki hiyo basi makosa ya jinai yanayohusu mawasiliano ya kielektroniki (Cyber crimes) hayajapambanuliwa kwa uwazi na hayajaainishwa kwa mapana zaidi.

Sheria hii mpya imeainisha mambo kadhaa ya kisheria ambayo katika hali ya kawaida raia wema wengi wa Tanzania wanaotumia simu za viganjani/mkononi hatuyajui. Lakini ukweli wa mambo ndio huo.

Sheria mpya ya Mawasiliano ya kielektroniki na Posta (Electronic and Postal Communications) ya Mwaka 2009. Sheria Na. 4 ya mwaka 2009. Sheria hii ina mambo kadhaa yanayoweza kudhaniwa ni utani au dhihaka lakini ni mambo ya kuzangatia. Ni budi kuzingatiwa maana sheria hiyo tayari imeshaanza kufanya kazi.

Challenges of Regulating ICT

There a number of challenges that ICT regulators face.

1. Technology changes and converge faster than law. The law making process takes long time. It is possible that when the law is made the technology has changed. This makes the law redundant.

2. ICT is Global and borderless. ICT such as Internet is not bound by the territorial borders set by sovereign governments. For that matter challenges such as cybercrimes, e.g., identity theft, money laundering, frauds, online child pornography, cyber terrorism, etc., is hard to prosecute in a particular country unless there is a convention (e.g., extradition) or cooperation.

3. Conservative Lawyers and law makers are less informed about technology development. Legal profession is known for being technophobic. The legislator on the other hand is not conversant with technology. It is important to note that ICT regulation requires understanding how technology is designed, how is it developed and how is it used.

4. Law is often acting after the fact. Where there is no problem the law is not formulated. Bureaucratic decision making required evidence of the problem. ICT regulation requires proactive measures not reactive ones. The speculative law making can also backfire as it can get the whole trend wrong. Technology is very uncertain. Often what is designed might not be what is implemented. And the use of technology might be different from what was contemplated during design stage.

5. The dominance of Multinaitional companies and the rise of private law making regime. Often ICT is self regulated. The state law making framework regulates licensing not how technology is to be designed. ICT depends a lot on standardisation process. This process is dominated by big fishes such as Microsoft and others. That does not mean that the government cannot control standardisation process. The government is interested in standardisation process for security, safety and health purposes. The government inteference in standardisation is often taken to be in conflict with Multinational companies business models. Thus, the stronger the country’s economy, the better for influencing ICT standardisation process.

Tanzania lag on privacy law

It is sad to concede that in Tanzania there is no comprehensive privacy legislation. While ICT has stormed Tanzania and the citizens are deploying ICT in everyday life the framework for privacy protection in these emerging technologies is not known.

Of course this does not mean that right to privacy is not recognized in Tanzania. The United Republic of Tanzania (URT) Constitution of 1977 as amended form time to times defines privacy as follows:

‘…Every person is entitled to respect and protection of his person, the privacy of his own person, his family and of his matrimonial life, and respect and protection of his residence and private communications…’

Article 16(2) goes further stipulating that:

‘…For the purpose of preserving the person’s right in accordance with this Article, the state authority shall lay down legal procedures regarding the circumstances, manner and extent to which the right to privacy, security of his person, his property and residence may be encroached upon without prejudice to the provisions of this Article…’

Article 16(1) and (2) of United Republic of Tanzania Constitution of 1977 as amended form time to time provides for right to privacy. Article 16(2) of URT constitution provides for possibility of other laws to encroach the right to privacy. The said article stipulates clearly that the law maker will enact law to stipulate how privacy right may be protected, pursued or encroached by government agents.Unfortunately this requirement has not been put into implementation.

TANZANIAN WOMEN AND ACCESS TO LAW

The case of Kilimanjaro. Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. Aginatha Rutazaa ( Program Officer, KWIECO Moshi) ...

http://www.sanford.duke.edu/centers/civil/papers/rutazaa.pdf

Guide to Tanzanian Legal System and Legal Research

By Bahame Tom Nyanduga and Christabel Manning

Bahame Tom Nyanduga* is Advocate of the High Court of Tanzania, and had been the President of the East Africa Law Society between October 2004 - October 2006. The main research for this compilation has been conducted by Ms. Christabel Manning, LL.B, a graduate of the University of Dar Es Salaam currently working in the Legal Department at KPMG (T) Limited and a member of the Tanzania Women Lawyers Association-TAWLA.

Published November 2006
Read the Update!

Table of Contents

Introduction

Sources of Law

Constitution

Statutes

Case Law

Received Laws

Customary and Islamic Laws

International Law (Treaties and Conventions)

Government Structure

The Executive