The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by former Acting Director of the Research, Information and Publishing (RIP) Department at the Tanzania Institute of Education (TIE), Dr Daudi Kajigili, after he failed to prove that there were legal or procedural flaws in the decision to dismiss him over allegations of negligence in supervising the preparation and publication of textbooks.
The court dismissed his appeal, saying evidence presented showed that the department he headed was responsible for overseeing the design and publication of 44 textbooks, including books that were found to contain errors and were distributed to schools.
Dr Kajigili was dismissed after an Inquiry Committee found him guilty of two counts of negligence, including failure to supervise the preparation of Standard Three and Form One to Four textbooks that were found to contain errors in content, language and illustrations. The allegations also involved a claimed Sh12.64 billion loss allegedly incurred by TIE as a result of the textbooks.
Following his dismissal, Dr Kajigili challenged the decision through various administrative channels, including the Public Service Commission and the President, who upheld the commission’s decision. He later challenged the decision before the High Court but was unsuccessful.
The appeal, Civil Appeal No. 290 of 2024, was filed against TIE, the Permanent Secretary and the Attorney General, challenging a High Court decision delivered on May 19, 2023.
The Court of Appeal ruling was delivered on September 16, 2026, by a three-judge panel comprising Justice Barke Sehel, Justice Omar Othman Makungu and Justice Isaa Maige.
How the dispute started
Dr Kajigili was appointed Acting Director of the department in February 2016. The department was responsible for overseeing some aspects of the preparation, design and publication of textbooks.
He was suspended on October 18, 2017, over allegations that he had failed to supervise the preparation and publication of Standard Three and Form One to Four textbooks.
On July 25, 2018, he was subsequently charged with two counts of serious negligence under the Public Service Regulations.
Dr Kajigili denied the allegations, but the Inquiry Committee found him guilty and he was dismissed from employment with effect from October 18, 2018. He appealed to the Public Service Commission, but his appeal was rejected.
Dr Kajigili later approached the High Court seeking judicial review of the decision after exhausting the available administrative processes. However, the court dismissed his application on May 19, 2023.
Grounds of appeal
Before the Court of Appeal, Dr Kajigili raised 10 grounds challenging the High Court decision, arguing that there were errors in the process used to take disciplinary action against him.
Among his arguments was that the Sh12.64 billion loss cited in the allegations differed from figures contained in some documents used during the disciplinary proceedings.
He also argued that some of the duties relied upon to find him guilty were not part of his responsibilities and that some of the events linked to the alleged loss occurred before he became Acting Director of RIP.
Dr Kajigili also challenged some of the documents used in the proceedings, alleging that certain pages were missing and that some contained handwritten entries.
In another ground, he argued that he had not been given a proper opportunity to be heard by the Public Service Commission and raised allegations of bias in the disciplinary process.
He therefore asked the Court of Appeal to overturn the High Court decision as well as the decision to dismiss him.
Court’s decision
After examining the proceedings and arguments presented by both sides, the judges rejected Dr Kajigili’s arguments and dismissed his appeal, saying the court’s role in judicial review was not to rehear the case or reassess the evidence against him, but to determine whether the process followed the law and applicable procedures.
‘The role of the court in judicial review is not to rehear the case and take the place of the authority that made the decision,’ the judges said.
On his responsibilities in supervising the textbooks, the judges considered evidence given by Dr Kajigili himself and documents submitted to the court.
‘The appellant himself gave evidence that his department was responsible for supervising the design of 44 textbooks,’ the judges said.
Regarding his argument that he was not personally summoned before the Public Service Commission, the judges said there was no mandatory requirement for an appellant to appear personally before the commission.
For those reasons, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and allowed the decision to dismiss Dr Kajigili from employment to stand, with each party ordered to bear its own costs.