|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| October 2022 |
|
|
|
31 October 2022 |
|
Whether the arbitrator correctly evaluated evidence and the employer discharged its burden to justify fair termination.
* Labour law – unfair termination – substantive and procedural fairness under section 37(2) Cap 366.
* Evidence – evaluation of oral and documentary evidence; admission in CMA Form No.1 and need for corroboration on denial.
* Burden of proof – employer’s duty to prove valid and fair reasons for termination; no impermissible shifting found.
* Proof issues – relevance of phone records and proof of service of internal memoranda when facts are undisputed.
* Judicial review – scope of High Court revision of CMA awards on questions of evidence and fairness.
|
31 October 2022 |
|
|
31 October 2022 |
|
Appeal dismissed: assessors' opinions were read, Tribunal properly preferred eyewitness evidence; no locus in quo visit required.
Land dispute — boundary identification by boundary tree — assessment of credibility: eyewitness evidence v. hearsay; assessors' opinions read and recorded — locus in quo visit discretionary, exceptional circumstances required; appellate re-evaluation of evidence.
|
31 October 2022 |
|
Prosecution proved unlawful possession of elephant tusks; cautioned statement and seizure lawful, appeal dismissed.
Wildlife law – unlawful possession of government trophy; admissibility of cautioned statements – timing and repudiation inquiry; arrest, search and seizure; chain of custody; credibility of independent witnesses; valuation and forensic identification of elephant tusks.
|
31 October 2022 |
|
Applicant failed to account for delay; court dismissed application for extension of time to file revision.
Extension of time — discretion — applicant must show sufficient reasons and account for each day of delay; alleged illegality must be apparent on the record to justify enlargement; lack of funds or union support not ordinarily sufficient without particularised evidence; prior unsuccessful proceedings and failure to pursue proper appeal relevant.
|
31 October 2022 |
|
A CMA award based on unpleaded constructive termination and unsworn testimony was nullified and the award quashed.
Employment law – Pleadings and scope of dispute at CMA; constructive termination vs breach of contract – Part B of CMA F1 mandatory for termination claims; parties bound by their pleadings; mandatory oath/affirmation for witnesses – failure vitiates proceedings; irregular record‑keeping and unsworn testimony as grounds for nullification.
|
31 October 2022 |
|
Technical delay from a struck-out timely revision was excused; the applicant granted extension to file revision.
* Civil procedure – extension of time – technical delay where an original revision was timely filed but struck out for procedural defects – striking out as sufficient penalty. * Labour law – revision of CMA award – notice of intention to seek revision – consequences of non-compliance. * Requirement of diligence and prompt action after procedural setback. * Illegality as separate ground not necessary where extension is justified by technical delay.
|
28 October 2022 |
|
Revision dismissed: extension denied due to unexplained delay, dishonest affidavit, and abuse of process.
Labour law — extension of time — requirement to account for each day of delay; affidavits tainted with falsehoods cannot be acted upon; illegality must be pleaded not merely argued orally; abuse of process and omnibus applications in enforcement disputes.
|
28 October 2022 |
|
|
28 October 2022 |
|
Representative suit complied with rule 5; no proof of settlement, revision dismissed.
Labour law — representative suit: CMA proceedings informal; representative suits governed by Labour Institutions (Mediation and Arbitration) Rules 2007 r.5(1)–(3) — list and signatures required; Evidence — party alleging prior settlement must tender proof; failure to produce settlement agreement entitles CMA award to stand; Costs — each party to bear own costs in labour matters.
|
28 October 2022 |
|
Technical delay from withdrawal of a defective CMA form justified extension of time and the CMA's refusal was quashed.
Labour law – condonation for late filing – Rule 10(1),(2) GN No.64/2007 – technical delay due to withdrawal of defective CMA Form No.1 – Lyamuya principles on extension of time – discretion to grant condonation – remittal for mediation.
|
28 October 2022 |
|
Assault at work justified dismissal and procedural fairness met despite differing show‑cause wording.
Employment law – termination for gross misconduct (assault); procedural fairness under Employment and Labour Relations Act and G.N. No. 42/2007; show‑cause letter versus charge sheet; employer’s burden of proof under section 39.
|
28 October 2022 |
|
Criminal trespass conviction quashed where accused raised genuine belief in land ownership; ownership must be resolved civilly first.
Criminal law – criminal trespass and theft – where question of land ownership arises court must not decide ownership in criminal proceedings; defendant's genuine belief in ownership requires civil determination first; onus remains on prosecution to prove offences beyond reasonable doubt.
|
28 October 2022 |
|
Termination was substantively justified but procedurally unfair; claimant awarded six months' salary and a certificate of service.
Employment law – unfair termination – substantive fairness v procedural fairness; typographical error in charge sheet not fatal where identity is clear; obligation to supply investigation report; right to mitigation before sanction; remedy by compensation where termination substantively fair but procedurally irregular.
|
28 October 2022 |
|
Termination allegedly for CPA lack was substantively and procedurally unfair; CMA award upheld.
Employment law — unfair dismissal; retrenchment/operational requirements — compliance with section 38 (notice, disclosure, consultation, selection); evidentiary burden for employer; waiver under duress; reasonableness of qualification requirements.
|
27 October 2022 |
|
Applicant failed to show good cause or account for delay; extension of time to set aside ex parte judgment refused.
Labour law — Extension of time under Rule 56(1) — Requirement to show good cause and account for each day of delay — Non-service of originating process is a substantive ground for setting aside ex parte judgment, not a substitute for good cause in extension application.
|
27 October 2022 |
|
Termination was substantively unfair where employer failed to prove negligence or consistent disciplinary treatment; CMA award upheld.
* Employment law — unfair dismissal — substantive fairness of termination for alleged gross negligence — employer must prove misconduct and that employee was properly trained/aware of duties.
* Employment law — disciplinary consistency — employer's inconsistent treatment of similarly situated employees relevant under Rule 12(1)(b)(iv) of the Code.
* Remedies — fixed-term contract terminated unfairly — award of salaries for remaining contract period is lawful.
|
27 October 2022 |
|
Revision dismissed: condonation valid, refiling permitted where wrong party was sued, and 15‑month compensation award upheld.
Labour law – condonation for late filing; interlocutory orders – revisability; withdrawal of execution and refiling; mis‑naming a party versus clerical error; jurisdiction and res judicata; evidential burden on employer to produce written contract (s.15(6) ELRA); compensation for unexpired fixed‑term contract.
|
27 October 2022 |
|
A party’s failure to follow up representation and not raising objections at the CMA dooms an application to set aside an ex parte award.
Labour law – revision of CMA decisions – setting aside ex parte award – sufficient cause for non-appearance – duty of parties to follow up representation; procedural complaint not raised at CMA cannot be entertained on revision.
|
27 October 2022 |
|
Applicant failed to prove illness as good cause to restore a struck‑out labour application; restoration dismissed and each party bears own costs.
Labour procedure — restoration of struck‑out file — requirement to show good cause under Rules 36(1) and 38 — evidentiary value of medical/clinic certificate — need for corroboration/timestamp; allegation of forged medical document and absence of police investigation report.
|
26 October 2022 |
|
Employer lawfully dismissed employee for unpaid external loan and reputational risk; procedure and policy incorporation were upheld.
Labour law – termination for misconduct; substantive fairness – employer's onus under s.39; incorporation of employer policies via offer of employment; procedural fairness – Code of Good Practice (G.N. No.42 of 2007, rule 13); evidence of unpaid external loan and reputational risk as grounds for dismissal.
|
26 October 2022 |
|
Probation extension lawful under labour rules; documented poor performance justified termination and CMA award was upheld.
Labour law – probationary period – extension of probation under Rule 10(5) GN.42/2007 – notice of termination – fixed‑term contract – poor performance as justification for termination – review of CMA award.
|
25 October 2022 |
|
Executing officer properly computed and enforced CMA award; respondent’s late reluctance to be reinstated did not defeat award enforcement.
Labour law – Execution of CMA awards – Jurisdiction of executing officer to compute quantum and enforce CMA awards as Labour Court decrees; Effect of employee’s stated unwillingness to be reinstated on entitlement to arrears; Attachment and sale of property to satisfy labour award.
|
25 October 2022 |
|
Employer had valid substantive reason for dismissal but disciplinary procedure was flawed; CMA award reduced to four months' pay.
Labour law – dismissal – substantive fairness established by forensic evidence and recorded communications; procedural fairness breached where investigation report absent and employee not ready for disciplinary hearing – compensation for procedural unfairness; limits on arbitrator’s jurisdiction to grant unpleaded relief (blacklist removal).
|
25 October 2022 |
|
Ex parte award set aside for lack of proof of service; matter remitted to CMA for inter partes rehearing.
Labour law – ex parte awards – requirement of proof of service/notification of hearing and award – revision of CMA ruling – quashing and setting aside ex parte award – remittal for inter partes hearing before another arbitrator.
|
25 October 2022 |
|
Failure to comply with a court-ordered filing deadline rendered the revision application time-barred and dismissible.
* Labour law – revision application – compliance with court order to file within specified time; * Civil procedure – competency of filing – effect of rejected electronic filing; * Time-barred applications – dismissal for non‑compliance with court order; * Respect for court orders – consequences of disobedience.
|
25 October 2022 |
|
CMA award quashed because the respondent was a public servant, failed to exhaust internal remedies, and CMA lacked jurisdiction.
Labour law – jurisdiction of CMA versus Labour Court on collective bargaining agreement interpretation; Public Service Act s32A – exhaustion of internal remedies by public servants before resort to labour laws; condonation – proper assessment of when dispute arose and delay; review – nullification and setting aside of award for lack of jurisdiction.
|
25 October 2022 |
|
Court dismissed applicant’s revision and upheld the respondent’s CMA award for wrongful termination and tort damages.
Labour law — condonation for late filing — sufficient cause where awaiting medical report; Arbitrator’s jurisdiction — framing issues consistent with CMA pleadings and opening statements; Breach of contract — termination without complying with contractual notice; Tortious liability — employer liable for foreseeable stress-related injury; Revision — appellate court will not interfere absent illegality or misdirection.
|
25 October 2022 |
|
Court upheld CMA finding that claimants were casual workers, not employees, and dismissed the revision application.
Labour law — Employment relationship — Section 61 factors for employer–employee presumption; burden of proof where employment is disputed (Evidence Act s110); employer record-keeping duty (ELRA s15) applicable only when employment exists; sufficiency of evidence to prove regular salary versus allowances.
|
24 October 2022 |
|
|
24 October 2022 |
|
Applicant’s 189‑day delay was inordinate and unaccounted for; condonation rightly denied and CMA award upheld.
* Labour law – condonation for late filing – factors under Rule 11(3) – requirement to account for all days of delay.
* Civil procedure – extension of time – application of Lyamuya principles: degree of lateness, reasons, diligence and prospects of success.
* Judicial review – revision of CMA award – scope limited where mediator properly applied legal tests and recorded evidence.
|
24 October 2022 |
|
Applicant's sickness and remand custody constituted sufficient cause to grant condonation and remit the matter to the CMA on merits.
Labour law – condonation/extension of time – Rule 11 GN No.64/2007; admissibility of evidence at CMA; unchallenged affidavit as proof; sickness, remand custody and community service as sufficient cause; revisional jurisdiction to correct procedural irregularity.
|
21 October 2022 |
|
A limitation-based preliminary objection fails where the date the applicant received the award is disputed and requires evidence.
* Employment law – Review of CMA award – Time limits under section 91 – calculation from date copy of award was given; * Civil procedure – Preliminary objection – distinction between pure points of law and disputed facts; * Principle in Mukisa Biscuit – factual issues requiring evidence cannot be decided on preliminary objection; * Limitation – when awareness/receipt of decision is contested.
|
21 October 2022 |
|
High Court lacks jurisdiction to revise its Deputy Registrar’s execution ruling; revision lies with the Court of Appeal.
Labour law – Execution – Jurisdiction to revise Deputy Registrar’s execution rulings; Rule 28 Labour Court Rules; Order XLIII CPC; inherent jurisdiction; vertical (Court of Appeal) revisional power.
|
21 October 2022 |
|
Revision allowed: arbitration dismissal for being out of time set aside; matter remitted for proper hearing on constructive dismissal and procedure.
* Labour law – constructive dismissal – time limitation for unfair dismissal complaints (30 days) – whether dispute was filed within statutory period. * Procedural fairness – right to be heard – admissibility of written submissions filed without leave. * Administrative law – reliance on extraneous evidence by arbitral tribunal – error of law and remittal for proper hearing.
|
21 October 2022 |
|
Court quashed eviction execution where original drawn order lacked required description of immovable property under Order XX Rule 9 CPC.
Civil procedure — Execution of decrees — Order XX Rule 9 CPC requires decrees concerning immovable property to contain sufficient description and title number; a court cannot, under guise of interpretation, make or import a new decree — executing court must give effect only to terms of the decree — High Court’s revisionary power to quash proceedings infected by material irregularity.
|
21 October 2022 |
|
Failure to frame the central issue and give reasons rendered the CMA award materially irregular and warranted revision and remittal.
Labour arbitration — requirement to frame and narrow issues (Rule 22(2) GN No.67/2007); awards must summarise evidence, arguments and reasons (Rule 27(3)); parties bound by pleadings; failure to ascertain nature/timing of termination affects timeliness; material procedural irregularities justify revision and remittal to CMA.
|
21 October 2022 |
|
Termination found substantively unfair; statutory 12-month compensation upheld, contractual 24-month award set aside.
Employment law – unfair dismissal – substantive fairness where no time-frame specified for task and pandemic context; contractual post-termination restraint – interpretation and limits of clause permitting restriction but not automatic compensation; compensation – statutory 12 months upheld, extra contractual 24 months set aside.
|
20 October 2022 |
|
An appeal to the High Court is incompetent if the appellant failed to seek re-admission after dismissal for non-appearance.
* Civil procedure – Appeal dismissed for non-appearance (Order XXXIX Rule 17 CPC) – Requirement to apply for re-admission under Order XXXIX Rule 19 – Failure to seek re-admission renders subsequent High Court appeal premature and incompetent – Appeal struck out.
|
20 October 2022 |
|
A conciliator lacked jurisdiction to deny extension or issue a one-sided award; the matter is remitted for proper hearing.
* Labour law – jurisdiction of conciliator vs adjudicator (muamuzi) – conciliator lacks power to decide validity of dismissals or grant determinative orders.
* Civil procedure – extension of time – delay can be excused where it concerns alleged invalidity of a prior award.
* Evidence – taking testimony without oath may vitiate proceedings and awards.
* Remedy – setting aside decisions made by an officer without jurisdiction and remitting matter for proper hearing.
|
19 October 2022 |
|
Leave to appeal granted on arguable issues about locus standi and propriety of the High Court's revisional powers.
Land law – leave to appeal – discretionary test for leave – arguable or novel points of law; Revisional jurisdiction – scope and limits – whether tribunal's error amounts to material illegality; Locus standi – substitution/amendment without proof of death or letters of administration; Pleadings – adequacy of description of suit land and consequences.
|
19 October 2022 |
|
When the respondent refuses re‑engagement, Section 40(3)(c) mandates 12 months' compensation plus wages and benefits until refusal date.
* Employment law – ELRA s.40(3)(c) – alternative remedy where employer refuses re‑engagement – twelve months' compensation in addition to wages and benefits due from date of unfair termination to date of final payment. * Cut‑off date for wages/benefits is date employer manifestly refuses re‑engagement, not date of order. * Re‑engagement creates a new relationship but is irrelevant where employer promptly declines; delays by employees should not extend employer liability.
|
13 October 2022 |
|
Applicants’ fixed‑term contracts expired; termination was lawful, CMA award upheld and applicants’ claims dismissed.
Employment law – contract characterization – fixed-term vs permanent contracts – expiry of fixed-term contracts; procedural fairness – opportunity to challenge documentary evidence; CMA award – evaluation of evidence and lawfulness of termination for expiry of fixed-term contracts.
|
12 October 2022 |
|
A tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by granting leave to refile without condonation or affording parties the right to be heard, so the award was set aside.
Labour law – jurisdiction and limitation – defective CMA Form 1 struck out – granting leave to refile without condonation or hearing exceeds arbitrator’s jurisdiction; natural justice – audi alteram partem – right to be heard before adverse procedural orders; procedure for retrenchment – consultation and evidence of teleconference; remedies – nullification and setting aside of award where jurisdiction lacking.
|
11 October 2022 |
|
Failure to serve the prescribed Form No.10 notice to the CMA is a fatal procedural defect and warranted striking out the application.
* Labour law — Procedural compliance — Rule 34(1) GN. No.47/2017 — Third Schedule forms (Form No.10) mandatory. * Interpretation of Laws Act s.53(2) — "shall" imposes mandatory duty. * Revision applications — failure to serve prescribed notice is fatal — application struck out.
|
11 October 2022 |
|
CMA lacked jurisdiction over a dispute involving a public servant; claims must follow section 32A Public Service Act procedures.
* Labour law – jurisdiction – whether CMA has jurisdiction over disputes involving public servants governed by the Public Service Act (s.32A).
* Administrative law – effect of Court of Appeal precedent on jurisdictional competence of arbitration forums.
* Procedure – referral of public servant employment disputes to the Public Service Commission under section 32A.
|
11 October 2022 |
|
Court set aside CMA award, finding termination substantively and procedurally unfair and awarding 24 months' compensation.
* Labour law — Unfair termination — employer's duty to prove valid substantive reason (Section 37). * Insubordination — requirement of wilful, gross refusal to follow lawful reasonable instructions; instructions must be reasonable. * Procedural fairness — mandatory investigation under Rule 13(1) of GN No. 42/2007; failure renders process unfair. * Remedies — reinstatement vs compensation under Section 40(1) and terminal benefits under Section 44.
|
10 October 2022 |
|
An unexplained nine-month gap between electronic and physical filing rendered the revision application time-barred as an abuse of process.
* Labour law – Revision of CMA award – Limitation periods – Electronic filing versus physical filing – Unexplained delay between electronic and physical filing – Abuse of court process; computation of time and service of awards.
|
10 October 2022 |
|
Review dismissed as time‑barred under Rule 28(1); filing amounted to abuse of court process.
Labour procedure – Review time limits under Labour Court Rules (Rule 28(1)) – Notice of review must be filed within fifteen days – Time‑barred applications and abuse of court process – Effect of counsel’s concession on competence of proceedings.
|
10 October 2022 |