When administrative bodies step outside the boundaries of their lawful authority, their decisions become ultra vires. This principle was recently reaffirmed by the High Court in the case of Dominic Adam Wanna Vs. The Police Force, Prisons Service, Fire & Rescue Force and Immigration Service Commission & Others [2025] TZHC 5651.
Background of the Case
Dominic Wanna, serving as an Assistant Inspector in the Immigration Office, was dismissed in April 2020 over allegations of forgery and counterfeiting of permits and receipts. Although criminal charges were subsequently brought against him, they were later withdrawn.
Seeking to return to his position, Wanna petitioned for reinstatement. His request, however, was rejected by the Commission, being the same body that had dismissed him, on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction to hear his appeal. Left without recourse, Wanna pursued judicial review before the High Court.
The Court’s Decision
The High Court of Tanzania, Mwanza Registry observed that disciplinary powers under the Police Force, Prisons Service, Fire and Rescue Force and Immigration Service Commission framework are tiered. Officers at Wanna’s rank fell within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Commissioner General of Immigration, while the Commission’s mandate was appellate.
By assuming original jurisdiction and dismissing Wanna, the Commission acted ultra vires beyond the scope of its statutory powers. The Court emphasized that such decisions are null and void ab initio, carrying no legal effect whatsoever. Consequently, Wanna’s dismissal was deemed never to have occurred in law.
The Court went further to hold that judicial review, although limited to questions of legality, can result in consequential orders. Thus, reinstatement with full benefits was an appropriate remedy, ensuring that Wanna was restored to the position he lawfully held prior to the unlawful dismissal
The ruling draws from a consistent line of Tanzanian jurisprudence. In Michael Mabula Nzengula and Another v. Kahama Town Council and Others, Civil Appeal No. 345 of 2022 (CAT), the Court of Appeal nullified dismissals tainted by procedural impropriety and ordered reinstatement with full benefits. Similarly, in Henry Zephyrine Kitambwa v. The President of the United Republic of Tanzania and Others, Civil Appeal No. 460 of 2022 (CAT), the Court of Appeal reinstated an officer whose dismissal lacked jurisdictional foundation.
Key takeaways;
- Jurisdiction is non-negotiable: Administrative officers must act strictly within the scope of powers conferred by law.
- Ultra vires acts are void ab initio: A decision made without jurisdiction is a legal nullity and carries no effect.
- Employment rights are preserved: The employee is deemed to retain their position as if the unlawful act never occurred as the employment remains intact until lawfully terminated through proper procedures.
- Judicial Intervention restores balance: Where dismissal is tainted by procedural impropriety or lack of jurisdiction, courts may order reinstatement as a remedy.
Conclusion
With Wanna’s case, the Court has reaffirmed a central tenet of administrative law where a decision made without jurisdiction cannot stand. This decision illustrates that unfair dismissal is not merely a question of procedure but of power and jurisdiction.
