A Critical Study of the Execution Process Against Government Bodies in Tanzania: Challenges Under the Government Proceedings Act.

 

A Critical Study of the Execution Process Against Government Bodies in Tanzania: Challenges Under the Government Proceedings Act.

 

Statement of the problem

Under the Government Proceedings Act, the Government of Tanzania is subject to civil liability in contract, tort, quasi-contract and other civil causes, “as if it were a private person of full age and capacity.” However, while litigation against government entities is permitted, the law treats execution of decrees against the Government differently from execution against private persons.

Specifically, where a civil order for damages, costs or other monetary relief is made against the Government or an officer of the Government, the court will, on application, issue a certificate under Section 16 of the Government Proceedings Act stating the amount payable. Once this certificate is issued, the funds are to be paid by the relevant Government accounting officer (e.g., Permanent Secretary to the Treasury).

Importantly, the standard modes of execution under the general civil procedure rules for private persons such as attachment and sale of property, garnishment, or other enforcement mechanisms are excluded when the judgment debtor is the Government. This means that a creditor cannot rely on typical execution procedures such as seizure of Government property or bank accounts to enforce judgments against government bodies.

As a result, in practice, even after obtaining a favorable judgment, creditors must wait for the Government (via Treasury or appropriate accounting officer) to release funds, a process often delayed. There is no effective mechanism to attach Government property (movable or immovable) to compel compliance, which limits the practical enforceability of civil judgments against government. Government entities often enjoy de facto immunity from execution, undermining the equal status promised in theory under Section 3 of the Act. Creditors may be left with a paper judgment, a decree without real, enforceable relief which erodes public confidence in civil justice and weakens the principle of accountability of public bodies.

Thus, although the Government Proceedings Act allows civil proceedings against government bodies, its execution provisions create a structural, legal barrier to enforcing judgments. This legal design undermines the effectiveness of civil procedure when the opposing party is the State. The inability to enforce judgments threatens access to justice, undermines rule of law, and perpetuate impunity for wrongful acts by public bodies.