|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| August 2018 |
|
|
Court set aside CMA ex-parte award for failure to consider applicant's good-cause excuses and ordered rehearing.
Labour law – ex-parte awards – setting aside ex-parte order for good cause – right to be heard – judicial exercise of discretion – s.91(4)(b) Employment and Labour Relations Act – adjournment for bereavement and witness unavailability – rehearing before different arbitrator.
|
24 August 2018 |
|
Court set aside CMA's compensation award after finding unlawful reliance on telephonic testimony and procedural unfairness.
Labour law — unfair termination — procedural fairness and right to cross-examination; inadmissible reliance on telephonic testimony absent proper cross-examination; remedy under s.40(1) ELRA — reinstatement v. compensation; natural justice; review of CMA award.
|
24 August 2018 |
|
Termination for negligence and loss held substantively and procedurally fair; CMA compensation award quashed and revision dismissed.
Labour law – wrongful/valid termination – misconduct and negligence causing employer’s financial loss; procedural fairness under Rule 13 (48-hour notice, right to representation); arbitrator’s compensation award review and justification.
|
17 August 2018 |
|
Fixed‑term employee’s dismissal for brief absence was substantively and procedurally unfair; awarded notice, leave, remaining salary and certificate of service.
* Employment law – unfair dismissal – substantive fairness: employer must prove valid reason related to conduct, capacity or operational requirements (s.37(2) ELRA; ILO Convention 158). * Employment law – procedural fairness: requirement to investigate and afford employee a hearing before termination (GN 42/2007 rule 13; ILO Convention 158). * Fixed‑term contracts – remedy for wrongful termination: pay for remaining contract period, notice pay, leave pay, certificate of service. * Jurisdictional limit – High Court Labour Division cannot adjudicate statutory pension (PPF) contribution disputes.
|
17 August 2018 |
|
Court upheld CMA: non‑transparent restructuring that made work intolerable amounted to constructive termination, award affirmed.
Employment law – constructive termination – Rule 7(1) GN.42/2007; restructuring and employer conduct; onus on employee to prove resignation not voluntary; restoration of dismissed CMA file – Rule 29 GN.64/2007; compensation for constructive dismissal.
|
17 August 2018 |
|
Applicant failed to prove an employment relationship; CMA award dismissing the claim is confirmed.
Labour law – employment relationship – application of section 61 LIA and ILO Employment Relationship Recommendation (2006); criteria: control/supervision, integration, economic dependence, exclusivity; absence of written contract examined by surrounding facts; failure to prove employee status warrants dismissal of claim.
|
17 August 2018 |
|
Court holds retrenchment substantively and procedurally fair; applicants' revision dismissed.
Labour law – retrenchment – substantive fairness – operational reasons (loss of contract); Procedural fairness – s.38(1) Employment and Labour Relations Act – consultation and trade union involvement; Evidence – presence of union officials may suffice even without written invitation; Revision – appellate scrutiny of arbitrator’s findings.
|
17 August 2018 |
|
CMA award of compensation for unfair termination upheld due to employer’s failure to observe required fair dismissal procedures despite an unlawful strike.
Labour law — unfair termination — resignation vs. dismissal; Code of Good Practice GN No. 42/2007 — Rule 13 (fairness of procedure) and Rule 14 (strike conduct); burden of proof on voluntariness of resignation; review of CMA award; effect of unlawful strike on procedural fairness requirements.
|
17 August 2018 |
|
An appeal is incompetent where it is brought against a person who was not a party to the original trial proceedings.
* Civil procedure – Competency of appeal – Appeal must be against a party to original proceedings; appeal against non-party is incompetent and renders subsequent proceedings a nullity.
* Locus standi – Contract law – Third party not privy to contract has no locus to sue under that contract.
* Representation – Power of attorney required to authorise another to institute or conduct suit on behalf of a party.
* Evidence – Absence of a material exhibit in the court file undermines reliance on it.
|
10 August 2018 |
|
Appeal allowed: respondent lacked locus standi and trial hearing was procedurally defective; lower judgments quashed.
* Land law – locus standi – a litigant must have a legal interest in the disputed land to sue; * Procedural fairness – right to be heard; trial beginning with cross‑examination noted as irregularity; * Appeal – quashment of proceedings and setting aside of lower tribunals' judgments where locus standi and hearing defects exist.
|
9 August 2018 |
| May 2018 |
|
|
Unexplained delay and inadequate recording of CMA proceedings vitiated the award; matter remitted for rehearing.
Labour law — Arbitration procedure — Failure to deliver CMA award within 30 days (s.88(9) ELRA) and inadequate recording of proceedings vitiate arbitral award; remedy is quash and remit for rehearing under s.91(4)(b).
|
25 May 2018 |
|
A counter-affidavit signed only in a firm name is defective; the individual advocate must be identified, and leave to amend was granted.
Advocates Act (ss.43–44) – endorsement of drawer’s name – firm/business name insufficient – pleadings must show individual advocate who drew or filed document – defective counter‑affidavit struck out; leave to amend granted under Labour Court Rules.
|
25 May 2018 |
|
Court dismisses employer’s revision and upholds CMA finding of substantively unfair termination due to lack of valid evidence.
Labour law — jurisdiction and timeliness of CMA referrals; right to be heard — issue framing and natural justice; unfair termination — employer’s burden to prove valid reason and adducing admissible evidence; disciplinary sanctions — proportionality and HR manual vs statutory code; remedies — reinstatement or compensation under Employment and Labour Relations Act.
|
23 May 2018 |
|
Applicant failed to show good cause or account for days of delay; extension of time to file review denied.
* Labour procedure – Extension of time – Rule 56(1) Labour Court Rules GN 106/2007 – good cause required. * Delay – applicant must account for each day of delay; unsupported informal follow‑ups insufficient. * Limitation – statutory time limits cannot be waived by parties; diligence is required.
|
23 May 2018 |
|
Where no termination was proved and no disciplinary process occurred, the arbitrator’s finding of unfair termination was quashed.
Employment law – unfair termination – jurisdiction where employee served less than six months – requirement for disciplinary investigation and termination letter – burden of proof on employer (Rule 9(3) GN 42/2007) – procedural fairness under section 37 ELRA and Rule 13 Code of Good Practice.
|
18 May 2018 |
|
Omission to cite s.94(1)(e) ELRA rendered the extension application incompetent and it was struck out with leave to refile.
Labour law — Procedure — Competence of application — Non‑citation of statutory enabling provision (s.94(1)(e) ELRA) — Jurisdictional defect — Incompetent applications to be struck out; leave to refile in interests of justice.
|
18 May 2018 |
|
Applicant’s revision held timely and properly cited but struck out for defective supporting affidavit; leave to refile in seven days.
* Labour law – revision of CMA award – time limit runs from service of the award; applicant must prove date of service. * Civil procedure – affidavit verification – non‑compliance with Order VI r.15(2) CPC renders affidavit deficient and may render application incompetent. * Procedural competence – citation of multiple provisions including proper enabling provisions is not necessarily fatal where enabling provisions are present. * Remedy – defective application struck out but leave to refile may be granted for interest of justice.
|
18 May 2018 |
|
Applicant’s retrenchment for operational requirements was substantively and procedurally fair; revision dismissed.
Labour law – retrenchment/operational requirements – genuineness of operational reason – procedural fairness under s.38(1) ELRA and Rule 23 GN.42/2007 – review of CMA award for pretext and material irregularity.
|
18 May 2018 |
|
Mediator’s dismissal breached applicant’s right to be heard and statutory time limits; matter remitted for fresh CMA mediation.
* Labour law – mediation and arbitration – whether mediator lawfully dismissed a dispute without hearing and whether statutory 30‑day mediation period was breached (s.86(4) ELRA). * Procedural fairness – right to be heard and recusal of mediator. * Civil procedure – non‑compliance with Labour Court Rules (Rule 28) vitiating CMA order. * Remedy – remittal to CMA for fresh mediation before different mediator.
|
18 May 2018 |
|
Whether the arbitrator properly awarded limited remedies for unfair termination of a fixed‑term contract.
Labour law – unfair termination – remedies available to arbitrator – CMA may grant remedies not pleaded but must be supported by evidence; fixed‑term contract – severance pay requirement of 12 months' continuous service; entitlement to transport/subsistence depends on proven place of recruitment.
|
18 May 2018 |
|
Termination found substantively and procedurally unfair; court ordered reinstatement and reduced general damages to TShs. 30,000,000.
* Employment law – unfair termination – substantive and procedural fairness; employer must prove valid reason connected to conduct and follow fair procedure (G.N.42/2007 Rule 13). * Remedy – Section 40 E&LR Act: reinstatement, re‑engagement or compensation; employer’s option if not to reinstate. * Damages – distinction between specific (requires proof/quantification) and general/nominal damages (solatium); court may reduce or substitute CMA awards. * Labour Court revision powers – Section 91 and Rule 28 to vary CMA awards.
|
18 May 2018 |
|
Application struck out for non-compliant affidavit under Rule 24(3); leave granted to file competent application within seven days.
* Labour Court procedure – Rule 24(3) GN No.106/2007 – affidavit requirements: names/description/address of parties; chronological material facts; legal issues arising from facts. * Competence of application – defective affidavit renders application incompetent and liable to be struck out. * Affidavit as sworn evidence – cannot be amended to cure foundational defects. * Res judicata – raised as preliminary objection but not determined where competence disposes of the matter.
|
11 May 2018 |
|
Failure to endorse drawer’s name/address under Advocates Act s.44(1) renders revision application incompetent and struck out.
Advocates Act — section 44(1) endorsement requirement — instruments prepared by non-advocates — section 43 limited to specified instruments prepared for gain — mandatory procedural compliance — Article 107A(2)(e) not a basis to waive statutory procedure — incompetence and striking out.
|
11 May 2018 |
|
A counter‑affidavit lacking the drawer’s endorsed name under s.44(1) Advocates Act is defective and struck out, with limited leave to refile.
Advocates Act s.44(1) – endorsement of drawer’s name and address; Office of the Attorney General (Discharge of Duties) Act s.5(3) – identification of officers acting for AG; competence of pleadings – requirement for individual advocate’s endorsement; striking out defective affidavits; Rule 55(1)-(2) Labour Court Rules – leave to file documents out of time.
|
10 May 2018 |
|
Applicant’s refusal to accept salary pending a pay-rise was not termination; CMA award upheld and revision dismissed.
* Employment law – termination – statutory definition under Section 36 – when conduct constitutes termination versus voluntary resignation/abandonment.
* Labour procedure – dispute of interest (claim for salary increase) distinguished from unfair termination.
* Judicial review – scope of revision of CMA awards – arbitrator’s recording and assessment of evidence not disturbed absent material error or misconduct.
* Evidence – contradictions in dates do not automatically vitiate an award absent proof of prejudice or material misdirection.
|
10 May 2018 |
|
Undue delay and undated correction of a CMA award rendered it improperly procured; award quashed and matter remitted for rehearing.
Labour law – Arbitration awards – Statutory 30‑day time limit for issuing awards (s.88(9)) – Failure to comply renders award improperly procured; Correction/back‑dating of award – Rule 30 / s.90 – undated corrections improper; Jurisdiction – requirement to refer arbitration after failed mediation (s.86(7)); Remedy – revision under s.91(2)(b) and remittal for fresh arbitration.
|
10 May 2018 |
|
Re‑engagement was quashed and three months' compensation awarded where procedural unfairness occurred amid employer restructuring.
Labour law – unfair termination – remedy: re‑engagement versus compensation – effect of employer restructuring and business decline on appropriate remedy; Section 40(1)(a)-(c) Employment and Labour Relations Act; Rule 32(5) GN 67/2007.
|
8 May 2018 |
|
The respondent's counter-affidavit and preliminary objection were struck out for non-compliance with the Advocates Act; leave to refile granted.
Advocates Act s.44(1) – endorsement/name of drawer – procedural competency of pleadings; pleadings filed by unnamed entity defective; court may strike out defective counter-affidavit and notice of preliminary objection; leave to refile; jurisdictional importance of proper endorsement.
|
7 May 2018 |
|
Failure to cite Rule 24(11)(b) renders an extension application incompetent; court struck it out with leave to refile within seven days.
* Labour procedure – applications for extension of time – fall under Rule 24(11)(b) where not specifically provided for. * Civil procedure – non-citation of enabling rule renders application incompetent. * Remedy – strike out and grant leave to refile (first defective application). * Res judicata issue not determined where dispositive preliminary objection disposed of the application.
|
4 May 2018 |
|
Applicants seeking leave to represent multiple employees must prove mandate and existence of those employees before leave is granted.
* Labour procedure – Representative suits – Leave to represent numerous persons – Requirement to prove existence and mandate of those represented – Rule 44(2) Labour Court Rules.
* Evidence – Authorization – Unsigned list and affidavit insufficient to establish consent to representation.
* Case law – Importance of leave and proof of mandate (citing Hamis Kaka and K J Motors authorities).
|
4 May 2018 |
| April 2018 |
|
|
Applicant’s illness and travel evidence did not constitute sufficient cause to justify a 25‑month filing delay.
Labour law — Condonation/extension of time — Sufficient cause — Applicant must account for delay (day‑by‑day) — Medical evidence and travel tickets must credibly substantiate incapacity — Dilatory conduct precludes condonation.
|
27 April 2018 |
|
Applicant failed to prove constructive dismissal; CMA award for half‑month salary upheld.
Labour law – constructive termination – Rule 7 GN.42/2007 – burden on employee to prove resignation was involuntary – suspension on full pay and notice to attend disciplinary hearing do not establish intolerable working conditions – CMA award upheld.
|
27 April 2018 |
|
Termination was substantively and procedurally unfair; employer ordered to reinstate applicant with full back pay.
Labour law – unfair dismissal; requirement to investigate before disciplinary hearing (Rule 13 GN No.42/2007); employer must prove clear, known rule breached (Rule 12); impartiality of disciplinary chair – charging person must not chair; mandatory opportunity to mitigate (Rule 13(7)); remedy – reinstatement under s.40(1)(a).
|
27 April 2018 |
|
Whether notice pay is payable where employees were consulted, worked the notice period and received terminal benefits.
* Labour law – retrenchment – procedural fairness – compliance with s.38(1) ELRA and Code of Good Practice; entitlement to notice pay under s.44(1) ELRA. * Notice pay – distinction between payment in lieu of notice and payment where employees worked notice; effect of terminal benefits on entitlement to notice pay. * Review of CMA award – arbitrator’s misapplication of law where procedural compliance and payment of terminal benefits were established.
|
27 April 2018 |
|
Reinstatement upheld where dismissal lacked evidential basis and procedural fairness; employer may opt to pay statutory compensation.
Employment law – unfair termination – substantive fairness and proof of misconduct; Procedural fairness – requirement that notice to show cause correspond to termination grounds and afford right to be heard; Remedies – reinstatement discretionary under s.40(1) ELRA and Rule 32 GN 67/2007; employer’s option under s.40(3) ELRA to pay twelve months’ wages if not reinstating.
|
20 April 2018 |
|
Court upheld unfair dismissals, reduced CMA compensation from 24 to 12 months, and ordered clerical name corrections.
Labour law – unfair dismissal – substantive and procedural fairness; employer’s burden to prove valid reasons and investigation; discretionary compensation under s.40(1)(c) limited by fairness; arbitral award precision and execution; clerical correction of awards under s.90 and Rule 30(1).
|
20 April 2018 |
|
The Court dismissed the applicant's request to call CMA records and to nullify or restrain sale proceeds for lack of merit.
* Civil procedure – Revisionary and supervisory jurisdiction – Whether High Court should call for CMA record for review/revision of arbitral/mediation proceedings.* Interim relief – Application to nullify sale and restrain distribution of proceeds pending determination – Court refused interim preventative orders for lack of merit.* Costs – Applicant sought costs to follow main event.
|
20 April 2018 |
|
Revision dismissed: applicant failed to account for each day of delay and did not plead alleged illegality before the CMA.
Labour law – Extension of time/condonation – Requirements under GN No.64/2007 (Rule 11(3), Rule 29(4), Rule 31); need to account for degree and each day of lateness; alleged illegality must be pleaded to justify extension; afterthoughts inadmissible; mediator’s discretion upheld.
|
20 April 2018 |
|
Applicant's repeatedly defective revision applications (missing verifier/citations) amounted to incompetence and were dismissed with costs.
Labour procedure – Revision application – Defective affidavit (missing verifier name/signature) – Non‑citation of enabling provisions (Sections 91 & 94(1)(b) ELRA) – Repeated non‑compliance with court directions – Dismissal with costs under Labour Court Rules.
|
19 April 2018 |
|
Revision held timely but struck out for fatal affidavit and formal defects; leave granted to refile within 30 days.
Labour law — revision of CMA awards — time limits under Section 91(1)(a)&(b) ELRA; procedural formalities — Advocates Act s.44(1) (drawer endorsement), Civil Procedure Code Order VI r.15(3) (signed verification), Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act ss.5 & 10 and Schedule (jurat format); consequence of mandatory defects — affidavit struck out; leave to refile; Court taking judicial notice of its earlier rulings under Evidence Act s.59(1)(a).
|
18 April 2018 |
|
Fixed-term contracts expire automatically unless a clear, proved representation creates reasonable expectation of renewal.
* Employment law – Fixed-term contracts – automatic termination on expiry absent contractual provision or clear representation – reasonable expectation of renewal required for unfair termination claims (s.36(a)(iii) ELRA; Rule 4 GN 42/2007).
* Evidence – burden to prove employer's representations; previous renewals not determinative.
|
18 April 2018 |
|
Attachment set aside because CMA award misnamed the employer and required correction before execution.
* Labour law – execution of CMA awards – attachment of property – misnaming of employer in arbitral award – correction of clerical mistakes under section 90 ELRA and Rule 30(1) GN No.64/2007 – wrongful execution against non-decree debtor; relief: lifting of attachment and release of vehicles.
|
18 April 2018 |
|
An application to extend time to file a notice of appeal is incompetent if Section 11(1) AJA is not invoked.
Labour Court – Extension of time – Notice of appeal – Jurisdiction – Appellate Jurisdiction Act section 11(1) must be invoked where extension concerns Court of Appeal time limits; Rule 56 Labour Court Rules cannot be used in isolation – incompetence for failure to cite section 11(1); jurisdiction may be raised suo motu; advocate’s negligence not automatically sufficient cause.
|
17 April 2018 |
|
Termination was substantively justified for absenteeism but procedurally unfair for denying a proper disciplinary hearing, meriting 12 months' compensation.
Labour law — termination for absenteeism — substantive validity of reason for dismissal; procedural fairness — right to be heard — burden on employer to prove fair procedure under GN 42/2007 and ELRA; remedies — compensation under s.40(1)(c).
|
13 April 2018 |
|
A revision application supported by an affidavit lacking mandatory contents and a proper jurat is incurably defective and struck out.
* Labour law — Revision of CMA award — procedural competence of revision applications. * Civil procedure — Affidavit contents — Rule 24(3) Labour Court Rules — requirement for statement of legal issues. * Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act (Cap.34) — jurat identification — Section 10 — material requirement. * Incurable procedural defects — striking out incompetent applications.
|
13 April 2018 |
|
A revision of a CMA award was dismissed as time-barred under ELRA section 91(1).
Labour law – Revision of CMA awards – Time limitation for filing revision under ELRA s.91(1) – Labour Court’s revisionary jurisdiction under s.94 and Rule 28 – Effect of settlement/quantification dates on limitation period.
|
13 April 2018 |
|
Applicant failed to show good cause for extension; counsel’s negligence and failure to attach the impugned order were decisive.
Labour procedure – extension of time to apply to set aside dismissal orders – requirement to show good cause; negligence of counsel not sufficient ground; applicant must account for delay and attach impugned order.
|
6 April 2018 |
|
Court finds dismissal substantively and procedurally unfair, requires minimum 12 months' compensation and revises terminal awards.
Employment law — unfair dismissal — substantive and procedural fairness; remedy — statutory minimum twelve months' compensation; awards without pleadings or evidence; repatriation and subsistence entitlements; time-barred terminal benefits.
|
6 April 2018 |
|
Extension application struck out for defective affidavit/endorsement, but applicants granted 14 days to refile a competent application.
* Labour procedure – extension of time – requirement to account for delay – sufficient cause.
* Procedural competence – supporting affidavit must be drawn and endorsed by an individual advocate; firm name alone is insufficient (Advocates Act s.44(1)).
* Incompetence and striking out – defective affidavit struck out; application declared incompetent under Labour Court Rules.
* Court power – jurisdictional/procedural competence may be raised suo motu; leave to refile granted to cure defects.
|
6 April 2018 |
|
Affidavit failing to state legal issues and reliefs under Rule 24(3) renders revision application incompetent and struck out.
Labour Court Rules — Rule 24(3)(c) & (d) — Affidavit must state legal issues arising from material facts and reliefs sought — Defective affidavit renders revision application incompetent — Proper preliminary objection — Leave to refile.
|
6 April 2018 |