Kigoma. The election petition challenging the outcome of the Kigoma Urban parliamentary race remains a tough battle after a High Court ruling rejected an application to suspend the case indefinitely.
The petition was filed by four voters from the constituency: Johary Kabourou, Loum Mwitu, Pendo Kombolela, and Luma Akilimali, against the Kigoma Urban Returning Officer and the electorate’s Member of Parliament, Mr Clayton Chipando, popularly known as Baba Levo.
In Election Petition No. 28949 of 2025, the voters are seeking to have the results that handed Baba Levo victory nullified and a by-election ordered.
They have also joined the Attorney General (AG) as a party to the case.
The application to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of an appeal to the Court of Appeal was filed by the first respondent, the Kigoma Urban Returning Officer, together with the AG.
However, after hearing submissions from both sides, High Court Judge Victoria Nongwa, sitting at the Kigoma Sub-Registry, dismissed the application and directed that the case proceed to the preliminary hearing stage as earlier scheduled.
The ruling was delivered on Friday, January 9, 2026, with a copy of the decision published on Monday, January 12, 2026, on TanzLII, the government platform that publishes Tanzanian court decisions, laws, and regulations online.
Judge Nongwa said that after completion of preliminary procedures, the matter had been scheduled for a hearing of preliminary objections on Friday, January 9, 2026, when counsel for the first and third respondents raised the application seeking a stay of proceedings.
The first and third respondents were represented by state attorneys Mark Mulwambo, Lesi Majalala, George Kalenda, and Erick Rumisha.
The second respondent, Baba Levo, was represented by Daniel Lumenyela and Emmanuel Msasa, while the petitioners were represented by John Seka.
Mr Mulwambo told the court that the first and third respondents had filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal on Tuesday, December 23, 2025, together with a request for certified copies of the relevant proceedings.
On that basis, he argued, the matter before the High Court could not proceed until the appeal against the court’s earlier interlocutory ruling had been heard and determined by the Court of Appeal.
The appeal challenges the High Court’s dismissal of a preliminary objection in which the respondents had sought to have the petition struck out for allegedly failing to meet legal requirements.
Mr Mulwambo added that although the appeal itself had not yet been filed, lodging a notice of appeal was sufficient to institute the appeal process and warrant a stay of proceedings.
He cited various authorities to support the proposition that once a notice of appeal has been filed, the lower court should halt proceedings pending determination of the appeal.
Mr Lumenyela, for Baba Levo, supported the state attorneys’ submissions and also cited decisions of the Court of Appeal.
In reply, Mr Seka argued that the application was barred by Section 5(2)(d) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, which prohibits appeals or references to the Court of Appeal on matters that do not finally determine a case.
He said the decision being appealed against did not dispose of the petition, which was why the matter was still before the High Court.
He added that election petitions are matters of public interest and subject to strict timelines under the Election Petition Rules, 2025.
Mr Seka warned that suspending the case for an indefinite period would cause it to lapse by operation of law after six months, depriving the petitioners of their rights, with no court having jurisdiction to revive the matter.
He further argued that reliance on the Legal and Human Rights Centre (LHRC) case cited by the respondents would create confusion, undermine justice, and violate the law.
He added that the respondents had failed to demonstrate how they would be prejudiced if the High Court proceeded to hear and determine the petition.
Even if judgment were delivered, they would still have the right to appeal, he said, and a final determination by the High Court would assist the Court of Appeal in dealing with a substantive appeal.
On the notice of intention to appeal, Mr Seka remarked that one could file such a notice and still not pursue the appeal, likening it to the Swahili saying: “We all intend to go to heaven, but not all of us will get there.”
He also relied on Rule 27 of the 2025 Parliamentary Election Petition Rules, which requires a petition to proceed continuously once hearing begins unless reasons are recorded, arguing that the case should therefore continue.
In the alternative, he said any adjournment, if granted, should be for a fixed period rather than an indefinite one.
In her ruling, Judge Nongwa stated that the key issue was whether the High Court retained jurisdiction to proceed with the case in light of a notice of intention to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
She agreed that every party has a constitutional right of appeal under Article 13(6)(a) of the Constitution of Tanzania, as revised in 2023.
However, she noted that this right is subject to statutory limitations, including Section 8(2)(d) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, which bars appeals or references against decisions that do not finally determine a case.
She held that the authorities cited by the state attorneys did not relate to election petitions.
The election laws, she said, clearly stipulate timelines for filing, hearing, and appealing election petitions, and only final determinations, such as whether a person was validly elected or has ceased to be an MP, are appealable.
“From all the election cases I have referred to, it is clear that you cannot appeal against a decision that does not finally determine the petition,” she said, noting that after dismissal of the preliminary objection, the case was required to proceed to a hearing.
While election petitions involve constitutional issues and should not be defeated by technicalities, she added, they are also subject to a strict six-month time limit.
Consequently, the judge dismissed the application for a stay and scheduled the preliminary hearing of the petition for Tuesday, January 20, 2026.