Arusha. Former Legal Officer Grade One at Njombe District Council, Mr Lusajo Mwakasege, has been granted leave by the High Court in Njombe to file a judicial review application challenging his dismissal, after the court found he possesses sufficient interest regarding his employment matter.
Mr Mwakasege was dismissed for being absent from work for over five working days, but he claimed this resulted from delayed payment of transfer allowances after being transferred to a new station, a situation he claimed caused his absence.
The High Court in Njombe gave him 14 days to submit a judicial review application challenging the procedure leading to his employment termination and ultimate dismissal.
That ruling came on Thursday, July 23, 2026, from Justice Victoria Nongwa, who heard Mr Mwakasege’s application against the President’s Office, Public Service Management, Public Service Commission, Njombe District Council, and the Attorney General.
The judge stated that after reviewing both parties' arguments, the court satisfied itself that Mr Mwakasege has sufficient interest in this employment matter and gave him 14 days to submit the judicial review application, noting he raised arguable issues regarding the process used to terminate his employment.
Background of application
According to court records, Mr Mwakasege was a public servant serving in the aforementioned position at Njombe District Council following his transfer from Ubungo Municipal Council on February 22, 2019.
Following that transfer, he claimed he was not paid his transfer allowances, an issue he claimed caused his absence from work, and that rather than resolving allowance claims, his absence became a disciplinary matter culminating in dismissal.
Mr Mwakasege was accused of absenteeism exceeding five working days in 2019, with formal disciplinary charge notices issued July 3, 2019, and delivered September 17, 2019.
After responding to charges and participating in preliminary disciplinary steps, he was notified via letter dated November 5, 2019, that his employment was terminated effective October 25, 2019.
The officer disagreed with that decision and appealed, but his appeal was rejected and his dismissal upheld.
He continued administrative struggles by appealing to higher authority, but received no relief.
The court noted that in a letter dated April 19, 2022, re-sent April 9, 2025, he was informed his dismissal was confirmed and finalised by the President of the United Republic of Tanzania on March 26, 2022.
Having failed to secure relief administratively, Mr Mwakasege turned to the High Court seeking leave to file for judicial review.
In his application, he claimed the disciplinary process used was fraught with legal and procedural flaws.
Among his claims was that no mandatory preliminary investigation occurred prior to proceeding with disciplinary action.
He also claimed the investigation breached procedures, he received no full hearing opportunity, nor was he invited to comment on the inquiry committee report before the final decision.
Mr Mwakasege further claimed he was dismissed without opportunity to present mitigating arguments, and his appeal decision exceeded the legal 90-day limit.
Court ruling
Justice Nongwa stated that at the leave stage, an applicant need not fully prove their case as in the main hearing, but must demonstrate arguable issues requiring examination.
She said after reviewing arguments, the court found the applicant met leave requirements by showing sufficient interest and arguable issues.
The judge noted Mr Mwakasege’s claims regarding lack of preliminary investigation, absence of a hearing, failure to invite comments on inquiry reports, and alleged procedural breaches deserve examination in the main application.
“Considering all these grievances, regardless of validity, I am persuaded the applicant demonstrated an arguable case for certiorari and mandamus orders,” said the judge.
She added Mr Mwakasege exhausted all available administrative remedies, including appealing to higher authorities, leaving judicial review as his remaining option to challenge the dismissal.
“In these circumstances, I am persuaded the applicant met standards for granting leave to seek judicial review,” she said.
