IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM

CIVIL CASE NO. 429 OF 2002

MATAYO H. KIWAYO      	…..................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS 
VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING AUTHORITY (VETA).............................DEFENDANT

Date of last Order : 15/ 9/ 09 
Date of Judgment: 17/9/09
JUDGMENT

MLAY, J.
The Plaintiff MATAYO H. KIWAYO who was an employee of the VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING AUTHORITY, (VETA) who is the Defendant. The Plaintiff has sued the Defendant for unlawful termination of service claiming damages amounting to the total of Tshs. 590,659,500, being earnings for remaining period of active employment for 14 years, leave allowance for 14 years, employers contribution to PPF, housing allowance and compensation for emotional and mental torture.

The plaintiff was initially represented by the late Ngassala advocate and later by Ms Rwebangwa while Ms Kashonda represented the Defendant. At the hearing, the following issue were framed:
1.	Whether it was a term of the contract of employment that the Plaintiff would be employed by the Defendant until he reached the retirement age.
2.	Whether the plaintiff was entitled to be conformed in his employment.
Whether or not the plaintiff was lawfully terminated from employment.
3.	What reliefs the parties are entitled to.

The Plaintiff led by the late Ngassala, was the sole witness who testified to prove the plaintiffs case while the Defendant also paraded one witness, one ADELHELM MGOMA MERU who was during the material period, first a Regional Director and later the Director General of VETA, who is the Defendant. At the close of the hearing of the suit, with leave of the court, the counsels representing the two parties filed written submissions on their respective cases and the date for delivery of the judgment was set.

It is clear to us that trade disputes have to follow that proscribed procedure and there is no room for going to the

R.E. 2002}

"trade dispute" means any dispute between an employee and employers or an employee in the employment of that employer connected with the employment or non - employment or the terms of employment, or with the conditions of labour of any of those employees or such employee."

The plaintiffs Counsel MS Rwebangira in her written submissions conceded that this court lacks jurisdiction. She stated in her submissions and I quote:
I have read the submissions of counsel for the Defendant which I concede to be the correct position of the law on cases of this nature. I have nothing of substance to add in terms of distinction from the present suit."
The question for determination is whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiffs suit. As indicated earlier on in this judgment, the issue of jurisdiction was not raised or argued in the course of the hearing of the suit or in the final submissions filed by the of both parties. The issue was raised by the court suo mottu in the course of preparing to write the judgment, but the parties were given the opportunity to address the court on the subject, which they did by filing additional written submissions, the substance of which is set out above. As the Defendants counsel Ms Mgutto pointed out and quoted from the case of MLISI LYIMO AND 4 OTHERS VS NBC HOLDING COPROTATION decided by this court, the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage the proceedings before Judgment. As the Court of Appeal of Tanzania stated in CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3 OF 2004, RICAHRD JULIUS RUKAMBURA V ISSACK NTWA MWAKAJILA AND TANZANIA RAILWAYS CORPORATION, ( MZA) ( UNREPORTED):

See also FANUEL MANTIRI NGUNDA VS HERMAN MANTIRI NGUNDA AND 20 OTHER (CA) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8 OF 1995 ( Unreported).

It is clear to us that trade disputes have to follow that prescribed procedure and there is no room for going to the High Court straight. The High Court has no original jurisdiction to entertain trade disputes. Such matters are dealt with accordance with the Act."

We therefore agree with the Defendants counsel that as this court lacks original jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiffs suit which is a trade depute, the suit is improperly before this court and it is accordingly struck out, with costs.

J. I. Mlay JUDGE

explained.

						JUDGE
						17/9/2009