Makuza v Civil Aviation Authority & Anor (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE No. 205 OF 2017)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
The court struck out the application on preliminary objection. First, the applicant had no cause of action against the 1st respondent (Civil Aviation Authority) as it did not make the impugned decision — the Minister did. Second, the matter was not amenable to judicial review because the applicant's claims were essentially for breach of employment contract requiring extensive evidence and proof of damages, which should be brought under the Employment Act by ordinary plaint, not judicial review.
Outcome
Application struck out on preliminary objection
Facts
The applicant, Dr. Wenceslaus Rama Makuza, was the Managing Director of the 1st respondent, Civil Aviation Authority. His contract was terminated by the Minister of Works and Transport pursuant to section 146(6) of the Civil Aviation Authority Act, which provides that the Minister may, after consultation with the board, terminate the appointment of the Managing Director. The applicant filed an application for judicial review challenging the termination as illegal, ultravires, null and void. He sought various declarations and claimed general damages, aggravated damages, and costs. Both respondents raised preliminary objections.
Issues
- Whether the applicant has a cause of action against the 1st respondent.
- Whether this is a proper case for judicial review.
Orders
- Application against the 1st respondent struck out with costs.
- Application as a whole struck out with no order as to costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (1)
Cases cited (2)
- Catherine Amal v Equal Opportunities Commission (Miscellaneous Cause No. 233 of 2016)
- Machacha Livingstone & Anor Vs Law Development Centre
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.