Nyachiya vs Tanzania Union of Industrial & Commercial Workers (Civil Appeal 79 of 2001) [2005] TZCA 66 (19 October 2005)











(Appeal from the ruling and order of the High

Court of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam)

(Katiti, J.)

dated the 4th day of April, 2001


Civil Case No. 30 of 2000




The appellant, Hezron M. Nyachiya, was employed by the 1st respondent, Tanzania Union of Industrial and Commercial Workers (TUICO) a Union of the 2nd respondent, the Organization of Tanzania Workers Union (OTTU) as a Regional Secretary, until on 27.4.1999 when his employment was terminated on allegation that he caused his employer, the respondents to lose members, and for absenting himself from duty from 16.3.1998. The appellant was aggrieved by the termination.

On 5th April, 2000 the appellant filed an application in the High Court under Section 2 (2) of the Judicature and Application of Laws Ordinance Cap 453, Section 95 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1966, Sections 17 (2) and 17 A of the Law Reform (Fatal Accidents and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance as amended by Act No. 55 of 1968, praying for orders of Certiorari and Mandamus.

When the matter was called on for hearing, the respondents, through their advocate Mr. Kalolo from M/S M.A. Ismail & Co. (Advocates), raised the following preliminary objections:-

  1. That the proceedings are unmaintanable as the decision sought to be challenged is alleged to have been made on 27.4.1999 and the proceedings were instituted on 4.4.2000 and therefore out of time without leave of the court, and so time barred.

  2. That the proceedings relate to a challenge of termination which is based on a contract of employment and the legal remedies for breach of contract have not been exhausted, and also, the first respondent is not a statutory body.

  1. That the second respondent is wrongly or irregularly joined in the proceedings as the applicant claims no relief against it.

The preliminary objection was argued by way of written submissions. The learned trial judge, the late Katiti, J., sustained all three points of objections.

Sustaining the first ground of objection, the learned trial judge held that, since the termination complained of was made on 27.4.1999, when the appellant filed the application on 5/4/2000, it was more than the prescribed period of six months, and therefore was time barred. The learned trial judge went further and considered the other two grounds and the application on merit and held that, the application had no merit. He therefore dismissed it with costs.

The appellant was dissatisfied with the decision on merits. Hence this appeal.

Before us the appellant is represented by Mr. Magesa learned counsel, who had also represented him in the High Court. The respondents are advocated for by Mr. Kalolo who had also advocated for them in the High Court.

Mr. Magesa preferred the following grounds of appeal:-

  1. That the trial judge erred in law and in fact to decide the matter on merits in the preliminary objection before the main application was heard,

  1. That the trial judge erred in law and in fact in holding that the matter was time barred,

  1. In the alternative to ground No. 2 above, the trial judge erred in law and in fact to fail to grant leave to the appellant to amend the chamber summons to show therein the correct date when the appellant was terminated from service.

When the appeal was called on for hearing, Mr. Magesa abandoned grounds Nos. 2 and 3, and argued ground No.1 only.

Mr. Magesa contended that, after the learned trial judge had held that the application was time barred, that was enough. He should have stopped there. There was no need to consider the other grounds of objection which strayed the learned trial judge into deciding the main application on merit, contended the counsel. Mr. Magesa further contended that, since at that stage the matter at issue was a preliminary objection, and their submissions were confined to that aspect alone, it was wrong for the learned trial judge to decide the whole application on merit. It is the learned counsel’s submission that, had the learned trial judge restricted himself to the preliminary objection where he had held the application to be time barred, he would have struck out the application instead of dismissing it.

On his part, Mr. Kalolo, learned counsel for the respondents, contended that, in the course of submitting on the preliminary objection, learned counsel for both parties submitted also on the main application, since the main application was based on evidence contained in the affidavits. The learned counsel further contended that, since the application was time barred, it was rightly dismissed under section 3 of the Law of Limitation Act, 1971. The learned counsel contended that, the proper course for an application which is time barred is to be dismissed and not to be struck out.

In reply, Mr. Magesa, contended that, the Law of Limitation Act 1971, does not appear to be applicable in applications filed under the Law Reform (Fatal Accidents and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance Cap 453; and that it has been the practice of the court to strike out an application which is time barred.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions by learned counsel for both parties.

For the interest of justice, we think, it is pertinent to say a few words on what is a preliminary objection, and the purpose it serves when it is raised in a case. In the case of Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. West End Distributors Ltd. (1969) EA 696, Sir Charles Newbod P. had this to say at page 701:-

A preliminary objection is in the nature of what used to be a demurrer. It raises a pure point of law which is argued on the assumption that all the facts pleaded by the other side are correct. It cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or what is the exercise of judicial discretion.”

In the same case, Law JA, at page 700 had this to say:-

So far as I am aware, a preliminary objection consists of a point of law which has been pleaded or which arises by clear implication out of the pleadings, and which, if argued as a preliminary objection, may dispose of the suit. Examples are an objection to the jurisdiction of the court, or a plea of (time) limitation, or a submission that the parties are bound by the contract giving to the suit to refer the dispute to arbitration.”

Recently, this Court, in Shahida Abdul Hassanali Kasam v. Mahed Mohamed Gulamali Kanji – Civil Application No. 42 of 1999 (unreported), expressed its view on the point in similar terms when it said:-

The aim of a preliminary objection is to save the time of the court and of the parties by not going into the merits of an application because there is a point of law that will dispose of the matter summarily.”

In the light of these observations, we ask ourselves: in the instant case, were all the three points of objection raised at the trial, preliminary objections? With due respect to the learned counsel who raised them, we think, it was only the first point of objection which was a preliminary objection worth its name. Time limitation is a point of law. The second and third points were not purely points of law. They were of mixed points of law and facts. The facts required proof by evidence. In that respect, we think, the learned trial judge should have struck them out and proceed with the first objection only.

As far as the first objection is concerned, there is nothing much we can say about it because Mr. Magesa has conceded that the application was time barred. We accept Mr. Magesa’s submission that the learned trial judge erred when he determined the appeal on merit when he was required to determine only the preliminary objection raised. The only crucial issue is as to what is the effect of an application which is time barred. According to Mr. Magesa, such an application is to be struck out. But according to Mr. Kalolo, it is to be dismissed under Section 3 of the Law of Limitation Act, 1971. We ask ourselves: is the Law of Limitation Act 1971 applicable to applications filed under the Law Reform (Fatal and Accidents Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance Cap 360 (now Cap 310).

Generally speaking, the Law of Limitation plays many roles including the following: One, to set time limit within which to institute proceedings in a Court of Law. Two, to prescribe the consequences where proceedings are instituted out of time without leave of the court. Where a period of limitation for any proceeding is prescribed by any other written law, the provisions of the Law of Limitation apply as if such period of limitation had been prescribed by the Law of Limitation Act.

This is provided for under Section 46 of the Law of Limitation which states:-

46: Where a period of limitation for any proceeding is prescribed by any other written law, then, unless the contrary intention appears in such written law, and subject to the provisions of Section 43, the provisions of this Act shall apply as if such period of limitation had been prescribed by this Act.

In the instant case, the time limit for instituting proceedings under the Law Reform (Fatal Accidents and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance is six months as provided for under Section 17 A (3) of the Ordinance.

But the Ordinance does not prescribe the consequence when such proceedings are instituted out of time without leave of the court. The Law of Limitation has a provision for the consequence where a proceeding is instituted out of time without leave of the Court. It is Section 3. Under that provision, that is, Section 3, the consequence is that, such proceeding shall be dismissed whether or not limitation has been set up as a defence. Since under Section 46 where a period of limitation for any proceeding is prescribed by any other written law the provisions of this Act shall apply, it is our considered view that, Section 3 of the Law of Limitation applies also in respect of proceedings instituted under the (Fatal Accidents and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance. Thus, the appellant’s application which was instituted out of time without leave of the Court, deserved to be dismissed.

We were impressed by Mr. Magesa’s observation that, it has been a practice by courts to strike out such proceedings. But, with due respect to the learned counsel, we think he had in mind this Court. If that is what he had in mind, then he was right. This is so because the Law of Limitation Act does not apply in respect of proceedings instituted in this Court as provided for under Section 43 (b) of the said Act. We have already held that the learned trial judge erred in deciding the main application on merit in the preliminary objection. We have also held that, since the appellant’s application was time barred, it deserved to be dismissed.

In the end result, and for the reasons stated, we allow the appeal to that extent and quash the learned trial judge’s finding on the main application on merit. The appellant who has failed in this appeal to have the dismissal order substituted with that of striking out, is awarded ¾ of his costs.

DATED at DAR ES SALAAM this 19th day of October, 2005.







I certify that this is a true copy of the original.



▲ To the top

Cited documents 0

Documents citing this one 71

Judgment 71
  1. Abillah Rashid Sadi vs Kibaha District Council & Another (Land Case No. 150 of 2023) [2023] TZHCLandD 16855 (1 September 2023)
  2. Ahmed Salum Katungunya & Another vs Seif Salum Katungunya (Misc. Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2011) [2012] TZHC 180 (27 April 2012)
  3. Ajirath Said and Another vs Sephene Antony (Land Case Appeal 57 of 2021) [2021] TZHC 5951 (31 August 2021)
  4. Alexander J. Barunguza vs Law School of Tanzania & Another (Misc. Cause 12 of 2022) [2022] TZHC 10421 (24 June 2022)
  5. Alfred Kinswaga vs Rosemary Kokuturage Mushumba & 21 Others (Land Case 47 of 2020) [2023] TZHCLandD 114 (20 January 2023)
  6. Alfred Sukari vs Jane Mwamwindi & Others (Land Appeal 19 of 2018) [2019] TZHC 15791 (2 October 2019)
  7. Ally Habresh Said @ Ally Habresh & 2 Others vs Mtemi Nalugaya (Misc. Land Aplication 374 of 2021) [2022] TZHCLandD 525 (8 June 2022)
  8. Alphonce Buhatwa vs Julieth Rhoda Alphonce (Civil Reference 9 of 2016) [2017] TZCA 142 (22 June 2017)
  9. Asimwe Emmanuel vs Hordia Emmanuel (Misc. Land Appeal No. 60 of 2022) [2023] TZHC 16019 (10 March 2023)
  10. Azulu Mwalongo and Others vs Ambonisye Mbilike Mwandembo (Misc. Land Application 33 of 2019) [2020] TZHC 1218 (20 May 2020)
  11. Barclays Bank Tanzania Limited vs Phylisiah Hussein Mcheni (Civil Appeal 19 of 2016) [2021] TZCA 202 (17 May 2021)
  12. Cipex Company Limited vs Tanzania Investment Bank (tib) (Civil Appeal 127 of 2018) [2020] TZHC 3260 (16 October 2020)
  13. Danstan Barnabas Lukosi vs Hon Morogoro Regional Commissioner and Three Others (Misc. Civil Cause 2 of 2021) [2022] TZHC 15372 (23 November 2022)
  14. Dismas Mark vs the Governing Council of Institute of Finance Management and Another (Misc. Civil Application 38 of 2020) [2020] TZHC 3366 (27 October 2020)
  15. Edward Msika & Another vs PC LEO & Others (Civil Case 73 of 2007) [2014] TZHC 2126 (15 May 2014)
  16. Elesi Majinge (as Administratrix of Majinge Matusela Daud) vs Ndigwake Kajeba and Others (Misc. Land Application 86 of 2019) [2021] TZHC 3376 (19 May 2021)
  17. Emmanuel Bakundukize and 9 Others vs Aloysius Benedictor Rutaihwa (Land Case Appeal 26 of 2020) [2021] TZHC 2634 (6 April 2021)
  18. Eva Issango and Another vs the Institute of Tax Administration and Another (Misc. Cause 58 of 2020) [2021] TZHC 3045 (30 April 2021)
  19. Ezekiah tom Oluoch vs Katibu Mkuu Kiongozi & Another (Misc. Cause 10 of 2022) [2022] TZHC 10420 (1 July 2022)
  20. Gaslamp Holdings Corp vs Percy Beda Mwidadi & Others (Misc. Commercial Application 113 of 2016) [2016] TZHCComD 2037 (24 October 2016)
  21. Geofrey Mgaya vs Nbc Limited Songea Branch & Others (Land Case 2 of 2019) [2022] TZHC 13594 (7 October 2022)
  22. Halima S. Sukuzi vs Sihaba Nassoro (Land Appeal 141 of 2016) [2018] TZHCLandD 373 (8 June 2018)
  23. Hamisi H. Mfinanga vs Rombo District Council and Others (Misc. Civil Cause 11 of 2019) [2020] TZHC 2229 (7 August 2020)
  24. Haridi Ndando vs Attorney & Another (Misc. Civil Application 28 of 2010) [2010] TZHC 6 (30 August 2010)
  25. Hassan Ally Shaban vs Delila Patrick Mwafongo (Civil Revision 28 of 2021) [2022] TZHC 14115 (18 October 2022)
  26. Hemed Rashid vs Salma Hussein (Civil Appeal 60 of 2009) [2014] TZHC 2050 (7 July 2014)
  27. Htt Infranco Limited vs Juliano Charles Mikongomi (Administrator of the estate of the late Charles Mikongomi), Mic Tanzania Ltd t/a Tigo Ltd and Alice Boaz (Misc. Civil Application 24 of 2020) [2022] TZHC 10467 (15 June 2022)
  28. Ibrahim Abdallah vs Selemanihamisi (Civil Appeal 314 of 2020) [2022] TZCA 43 (21 February 2022)
  29. Jembe Media Limited vs Gabriel Raymond (Labour Dispute 42 of 2020) [2021] TZHC 3480 (11 February 2021)
  30. John Mnyau Muyombo and Others vs Dc Rombo District and Others (Misc. Civil Cause 10 of 2019) [2020] TZHC 2231 (7 August 2020)
  31. Juma Sanga vs Matrida Sansupa (Misc. Land Reference 10 of 2018) [2020] TZHC 1219 (13 May 2020)
  32. Jumanne Iddi Chomboko (Administrator of the Late Iddi Mwinyikondo Chomboko) vs Fukayosi Village Council & 2 Others (Land Case 240 of 2022) [2022] TZHCLandD 12723 (7 December 2022)
  33. Kera Komeyo Makeseni and 8 others vs Kilimanjaro Regional Comissioner and Another (Misc. Civil Cause No. 2 of 2023) [2023] TZHC 21592 (5 October 2023)
  34. Kevin Peter Makaranga vs the Police force, Immigration and Prison Service Commission and Others (Misc. Cause 51 of 2020) [2021] TZHC 2067 (9 February 2021)
  35. Koshuma Mtengeti vs Hussein Fikirini Tanganyika (Lan Appeal 316 of 2022) [2023] TZHCLandD 144 (17 March 2023)
  36. Lwidiko Ramadhani Mbembati vs Mafinga Town Council & 2 Others (Land Case 4 of 2021) [2021] TZHC 9252 (16 December 2021)
  37. M.A Kharaf & Sons Ltd vs National Constructions Councils & Others (Misc. Commercial Case 221 of 2016) [2017] TZHCComD 7 (3 May 2017)
  38. MANTRAC Tanzania Limited vs Goodwill Ceramics Tanzania Limited (Civil Appeal No.269 of 2020) [2023] TZCA 17506 (21 August 2023)
  39. Majura Kafumu vs Pili Rashidi (Civil Appeal 69 of 2010) [2011] TZHC 2049 (4 March 2011)
  40. Mehboob Fazal Rawji vs Murtaza Fazal (Civil Appeal No. 84 of 2011) [2012] TZHC 167 (4 April 2012)
  41. Moto Matiko Mabanga vs Ophil Energy Plc and Others (Commercial Case 43 of 2019) [2021] TZHCComD 2026 (12 February 2021)
  42. New Msowero Farms Ltd vs China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation Ltd & Another (Misc. Civil Application 167 of 2022) [2022] TZHC 9532 (16 May 2022)
  43. Nimrod Nehemia Elireheman Mkono vs Board of Trustees of the Mkono & Co Advocates (Misc. Civil Application 193 of 2022) [2022] TZHC 13239 (23 September 2022)
  44. North Mara Gold Mine Limited vs Sinda Nyamboge Ntora (Civil Appeal 457 of 2020) [2022] TZCA 258 (9 May 2022)
  45. Paskali Tluway Arbay vs Ng'aida Tlaa (Misc. Civil Application 54 of 2021) [2022] TZHC 14723 (15 November 2022)
  46. Patrick Magologozi Mongella vs The Board of Trustees of The Public Service Sorcial Security Fund (Civil Application 342 of 2019) [2022] TZCA 216 (22 April 2022)
  47. Peter Lutashobya Bandio vs Tanzania Institute of Education & Another (Misc. Cause 25 of 2021) [2022] TZHC 347 (22 February 2022)
  48. Peter Njibha vs Tanzania Postal Bank (Civil Appeal 26 of 2010) [2011] TZHC 2058 (19 August 2011)
  49. Rajabu Juma Mwasegera vs Mariam Hassan (PC Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2014) [2015] TZHC 2184 (22 September 2015)
  50. Rashid Rashidi Mniposa vs Lyeha Jamali Msoi (Civil Appeal 15 of 2022) [2022] TZCA 129 (22 March 2022)
  51. Registered Trustees of Shadhily vs Salim Omary (Civil Application No 275 of 2016) [2016] TZCA 2042 (28 November 2016)
  52. Rogers Mutale vs. Stamigold Company Limited (Miscellaneous Labour Application No. 231 of 2023) [2023] TZHCLD 1477 (7 November 2023)
  53. Sarbjit Singh Bharya & Another vs Nic Bank Tanzania Ltd & Another (Civil Appeal 94 of 2017) [2021] TZCA 212 (25 May 2021)
  54. Serengeti Breweries Ltd vs Hector Sequiraa (Civil Application No 233 of 2016) [2016] TZCA 2043 (2 December 2016)
  55. Simion Werema vs Simion John Petro & Another (PC Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2022) [2023] TZHC 16181 (22 March 2023)
  56. Star System International CO. LTD vs Agatha Cyril Nangawe (Civil Appeal 10 of 2015) [2016] TZHC 2124 (19 April 2016)
  57. Stephano Rubogo vs Ernestina Simon (Misc. Land Appeal 6 of 2022) [2023] TZHC 16345 (17 March 2023)
  58. Steven Ngoloka vs Ponsian Nkwama (Misc. Land Application 8 of 2019) [2020] TZHC 65 (27 February 2020)
  59. Tabu Kulwa vs Veronica Lugola (Misc. Land Aplication 45 of 2022) [2022] TZHC 13502 (5 October 2022)
  60. Tanga Cement Public Limited Company vs the Fair Competition Commission and Another (Misc. Commercial Application 57 of 2021) [2021] TZHCComD 3332 (15 September 2021)
  61. Tanzania Electric Supply Co. Ltd vs Jumanne Masanja (DC Civil Appeal 3 of 2011) [2014] TZHC 1 (8 September 2014)
  62. Tanzania portland Cement Public Listed Company vs Tanzania Social Action Fund & Another (Land Case No. 46 of 2023) [2023] TZHCLandD 16844 (1 September 2023)
  63. Tecla Wapalila vs Wito Ezakiel Dzombe (Civil Appeal 10 of 2021) [2023] TZHC 17062 (2 May 2023)
  64. Teojeni Luzigamanzi vs Mtaga Teojeni (Civil Application No. 130 of 2020) [2023] TZHC 343 (20 February 2023)
  65. Tibe Keneth Rwakatare (Suing as an administrator of the estates of the deceased Getrude Rwakatare) vs. The Board of Trustees of Dodoma and Two Others (Civil Case No. 03 of 2022) [2023] TZHC 22935 (6 November 2023)
  66. Tryphone Rwezaula vs Aloysius Benedicto Rutahiwa (Land Appeal 30 of 2020) [2021] TZHC 3226 (21 May 2021)
  67. Wegesa Lameck Mwita vs Juma Adam Ng'wadi (PC. Civil Appeal 53 of 2010) [2011] TZHC 2094 (8 March 2011)
  68. Zebadia Wanchara Chacha & 21 Others vs North Mara Gold Mine Limited (Land Case 27 of 2022) [2023] TZHC 20308 (22 August 2023)
  69. Zubedabai Nurdin Khanbai vs Ethiopian Airlines (Civil Appeal 133 of 2016) [2016] TZCA 929 (7 December 2016)
  70. Zubedai Nurdin Khanbai vs Ethiopians Airlines (Civil Appeal No 133 of 2016) [2017] TZCA 295 (8 December 2017)
  71. anderson Mwankusye vs Martine Ndunguru (Misc. Land Application 119 of 2020) [2022] TZHC 10530 (28 June 2022)