|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| May 2022 |
|
|
Substantive misconduct found but dismissal procedurally unfair, award reduced to twelve months' salary plus severance and service certificate.
Labour law — unfair termination — employer's burden to prove valid substantive reason; evidence standard in labour disputes is balance of probabilities; procedural fairness — proper sequence of investigation, suspension and disciplinary hearing under G.N. No. 42 of 2007; remedy — substitution of CMA compensation where procedure defective.
|
31 May 2022 |
|
Failure to administer oath/affirmation at the CMA vitiates proceedings; award quashed and retrial ordered.
Labour law — Evidence — Mandatory administration of oath/affirmation at CMA under Rule 25(1) — Non-compliance renders evidence valueless and vitiates proceedings — Award quashed and matter remitted for retrial before another arbitrator.
|
30 May 2022 |
|
Fair reason for termination found but retrospective policy use made procedure unfair; applicant awarded 12 months' compensation and terminal benefits.
* Employment law – unfair termination – validity of reason: failure to produce original qualification certificates – employer’s burden of proof (s.39). * Employment law – procedural fairness – retrospective application of HR policy and failure to follow retrenchment/operational requirements (s.38). * Labour procedure – Rule 13(3) GN. No. 42 of 2007 – reasonable time to prepare for disciplinary hearing.
|
27 May 2022 |
|
A representative quantification application was struck out for failing to obtain court leave to represent 620 persons; no costs awarded.
* Labour procedure – representative suits – Rule 44(2) Labour Courts Rules – leave required to represent numerous persons; proof of mandate and notice requirements. * Civil procedure – preliminary objections – competency of representative application; pending appellate proceedings affecting competency. * Enforcement – application for quantification/certification of decree – jurisdictional and locus issues raised but not decided due to fatal representative defect.
|
27 May 2022 |
|
Applicant failed to justify non-appearance or provide evidence, so court dismissed application to set aside dismissal for want of prosecution.
Labour procedure – setting aside dismissal for want of prosecution – need for credible, corroborated evidence to justify non-appearance; duty of advocate to verify court records and notify court of unavoidable absence; unsupported affidavit assertions and misleading statements undermine applications to set aside dismissals.
|
27 May 2022 |
|
Failure to file CMAF.10 at the CMA does not automatically render a Labour Division revision application incompetent.
Labour law — Procedure — Regulation 34(1) GN No.47/2017 and CMAF.10 — Whether failure to file CMAF.10 at the CMA vitiates competence of revision — Labour Court Rules (GN No.106/2007) govern competence — Overriding objectives and substantive justice may cure procedural non‑compliance.
|
27 May 2022 |
|
Applicants were casual workers who failed to prove employment under s61 ELRA; unfair termination claim dismissed.
Employment law – contract types (s.14 ELRA) – presumption of employment and indicia of employment (s.61 ELRA) – casual workers vs. employees – burden of proof for unfair termination – evidence requirements (hours, control, economic dependence).
|
27 May 2022 |
|
A revision application was dismissed as time‑barred for being filed beyond the statutory six‑week period without extension.
* Labour law – Revision of CMA award – Limitation period – Section 91(1)(a) Employment and Labour Relations Act – Six‑week time limit to apply – Withdrawal with leave to refile – Filing outside prescribed time without extension – Preliminary objection on time bar sustained.
|
26 May 2022 |
|
Commissioner lawfully refused late objection and condonation after enforcement proceedings were instituted in the Labour Court.
Labour law - compliance order - objection and condonation - section 47 LIA - enforcement/application to Labour Court - execution pending - functus officio - time bar for objections.
|
25 May 2022 |
|
Court set aside CMA award because arbitrator wrongly compared non‑comparable employee conduct; dismissal was fair.
Labour law – unfair termination – assessment of substantive and procedural fairness – improperly comparing treatment of employees – apology letter versus appeal – review of CMA award.
|
25 May 2022 |
|
Fixed-term contract expiry upheld; court found respondent lawfully terminated and properly set off terminal benefits.
Labour law – fixed-term contract – automatic termination on expiry – notice of non-renewal – fairness of termination; Terminal benefits – payment and lawful set-off against outstanding loans; Procedural bars – new issues and untendered documents not entertained on revision.
|
23 May 2022 |
|
Revision dismissed: retrenchment lacked valid reason and failed statutory consultation and notice requirements.
Labour law — Retrenchment — Substantive and procedural fairness under s.38 ELRA — Consultation and notice requirements — Revision limited to CMA record — Fresh evidence inadmissible.
|
23 May 2022 |
|
Arbitrator’s decision on breach, not the pleaded unfair termination, vitiates the CMA award and is set aside.
Labour law – pleadings and determination – arbitrator must decide the issue pleaded; misdirection by deciding breach of fixed‑term contract instead of unfair termination vitiates award – procedural irregularity – Rule 8(2) of the Code – revision jurisdiction.
|
23 May 2022 |
|
|
23 May 2022 |
|
Failure to file mandatory CMA Form No.10 renders a revision incompetent and liable to be struck out, though refiling was permitted.
Labour procedure — Regulation 34(1) GN.47/2017 — mandatory use of prescribed forms (Third Schedule) — failure to file CMA Form No.10 (notice of intention to seek revision) is a fatal defect — revision struck out; leave to refile granted.
|
23 May 2022 |
|
Late filing of submissions without leave justified expunging them and dismissing the application for want of prosecution.
Civil procedure — Compliance with court orders — Filing written submissions within court-ordered time — Necessity to seek leave for extension — Late filings without leave expunged — Dismissal for want of prosecution.
|
23 May 2022 |
|
Termination during probation for admitted gross dishonesty in a financial institution was justified and the CMA award was quashed.
Labour law — Probationary termination — Employer’s right to terminate during probation; Misconduct — Gross dishonesty and breach of trust where employee admits receiving and misusing customer funds; Financial institutions — heightened requirement of trust and integrity; Remedies — section 35 (Cap 366 RE 2019) excludes employees with <6 months’ service from unfair termination remedies; Revision — High Court quashes CMA award where termination during probation is justified.
|
20 May 2022 |
|
Termination found substantively and procedurally unfair; employee may file CMA dispute without awaiting internal appeal.
Labour law – unfair termination – procedural fairness in disciplinary hearings; evidence evaluation – unchallenged testimony and improper importation of words by arbitrator; competence to file CMA dispute without exhausting internal appeal; constructive dismissal and remedies (compensation, notice, leave, severance).
|
20 May 2022 |
|
Applicant granted condonation: public holidays excluded from filing time and delay held reasonable.
Labour law — condonation for late filing — computation of time — exclusion of public holidays under Interpretation of Laws Act; discretion to grant extension of time — applicant must account for delay but each case assessed on its circumstances; technical delay principle; CMA decision quashed for misapplication of law.
|
20 May 2022 |
|
Over eighteen months' delay and non‑apparent illegality do not justify extension of time to lodge an appeal.
* Civil procedure — Extension of time to appeal — Good cause, inordinate delay and diligence (Lyamuya principles).
* Appellate procedure — Rule 83 Court of Appeal Rules and section 11(1) Appellate Jurisdiction Act — requirements for lodging notice of appeal.
* Illegality as ground for extension — must be glaringly apparent on the face of the record.
* Delay caused by extra‑judicial complaints (PCCB) or time taken to find counsel is not necessarily sufficient cause.
|
20 May 2022 |
|
Applicant’s delay in seeking revision was inordinate; alleged illegality was not plainly apparent, so extension denied.
Extension of time – Labour Court Rules r.56(1) – s.91(1)(a) ELRA six‑week limit – Lyamuya principles on inordinate delay and diligence – illegality as ground for extension must be glaring on the face of the record – re‑engagement remedy challenged.
|
20 May 2022 |
|
Where an employer declines reinstatement after unfair termination, section 40(3) ELRA requires twelve months’ wages plus specified benefits, calculated as ordered.
* Employment law – unfair termination – section 40(3) ELRA – employer’s election not to reinstate requires payment of twelve months’ wages plus wages due and other benefits from termination to final payment; computation of terminal benefits and interaction with Collective Bargaining Agreement. * Execution proceedings – whether Deputy Registrar may compute/interpret judgment – Court’s power to give directives and quantify compensation.
|
20 May 2022 |
|
Court upheld arbitration award for unpaid terminal benefits based on employer's written agreement and lack of contrary evidence.
Employment law – retrenchment and fixed-term contract; terminal benefits (salary arrears, annual leave, gratuity, severance); admissibility and effect of employer’s letter admitting obligations; review of arbitral award for correctness of computation.
|
20 May 2022 |
|
The applicant lacked standing to seek revision of an order striking out an execution application filed by the respondents.
Labour law – execution of CMA awards – strike-out of execution application – competence/locus to seek revision – struck-out applications are not final and may be refiled by the filing party; substantive issues (s.40(3) ELRA, quantum calculation, deposit into court) not decided where procedural incompetence found.
|
20 May 2022 |
|
Application to interpret CMA award was time-barred; filing deadline runs from service of the award and no leave was granted.
Labour law – Time limits for challenging CMA awards – Interpretation application must be filed within 14 days from service of CMA award (s.90 ELRA); District Registrar’s permission does not equate to extension or leave to file out of time; failure to obtain leave renders application time-barred and liable to dismissal.
|
19 May 2022 |
|
Extension of time granted where withdrawal of a review produced a technical delay amounting to sufficient cause.
Extension of time – statutory discretion under s.11(1) Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Court of Appeal Rules – application of Lyamuya principles – accounting for delay and diligence – technical delay arising from withdrawn review application may constitute sufficient cause.
|
19 May 2022 |
|
An order granting condonation is interlocutory and not subject to revision; the revision is dismissed and costs borne by the parties.
* Labour procedure – condonation – application for condonation is interlocutory and does not finally determine substantive disputes – not subject to revision under Rule 50 of Labour Court Rules.
* Procedural law – Rule 11(2) Labour Institutions GN No. 64/2007 – condonation linked to main (late) application.
* Appeal and revision – interlocutory orders not appealable/revisable; reliance on Court of Appeal authorities.
|
19 May 2022 |
|
Extension of time granted where delay from obtaining representative‑suit leave was not inordinate.
Labour law – Extension of time to file revision of CMA award; Rule 44(2) (representative suits); Rule 56(1) (Court’s discretion to extend time); s.91(1)(a) ELRA (six‑week limitation); Lyamuya principles on ‘good cause’; inordinate delay; diligence.
|
18 May 2022 |
|
An affidavit omitting the applicants' names and addresses contravenes Rule 24(3) and renders the application incurably defective.
Labour Practice – Rule 24(3) Labour Court Rules – affidavit must state names, description and addresses of parties – omission of applicants’ names and physical addresses renders affidavit incurably defective – application incompetent and struck out.
|
18 May 2022 |
|
An application to set aside dismissal for want of prosecution was dismissed for lack of credible, non-hearsay evidence and prior irregular attendance.
Labour procedure – setting aside dismissal for want of prosecution – requirement to show sufficient reasons; hearsay – information from court officers must be deponed by those persons to have evidential value; recurrent non-appearance supports dismissal.
|
16 May 2022 |
|
Employer proved substantive and procedural fairness of termination for absenteeism; revision application dismissed.
Employment law – unfair termination – absenteeism as serious misconduct under the Code; burden of proof on employer to show fairness on balance of probabilities; procedural fairness – Rule 13 not a rigid checklist; email service and prior show-cause letters can suffice; court will not disturb CMA findings absent error.
|
16 May 2022 |
|
Condonation for technical delay affirmed where timely but incompetent filings were promptly corrected; revision dismissed.
* Labour law – condonation – technical delay – where original referral lodged in time but found incompetent, prompt refiling may justify extension of time.
* Civil procedure – review of arbitral discretion – High Court will not disturb CMA condonation where sufficient cause shown and no prejudice.
* CMA procedure – competence of CMA F1 filings and compliance with time orders.
|
16 May 2022 |
|
Registrar entitled to implement and clarify monetary awards; review application dismissed.
Labour procedure — Enforcement/execution of awards — Registrar’s (Msajili) powers to give effect to High Court/Commission awards — Scope of authority to compute or clarify monetary entitlements — Review of Registrar’s execution orders.
|
16 May 2022 |
|
Procedural lapses in illness‑based termination warranted partial revision and reduced compensation despite substantive agreement to terminate.
* Labour law – termination for ill‑health/incapacity – substantive fairness versus procedural fairness under GN. No. 42/2007 (Guidelines 7). * Professional conduct – advocate acting as both counsel and witness – conflict of interest (Regulation 45) and need to show prejudice. * Remedies – reduction of statutory compensation for procedural unfairness; time‑bar on leave allowance (Rule 10 GN.64/2007).
|
16 May 2022 |
|
Applicant's challenge to unfair-termination award dismissed except deduction of alleged loan from terminal benefits set aside.
* Labour law – fixed-term contracts – minimum duration and binding effect of agreed extensions. * Employment law – unfair termination remedies – section 40 ELRA and payment for remaining term of breached fixed-term contract. * Evidence – burden to prove salary and payment method; bank statements/pay slips vs unproven assertions. * Procedure – arbitrator’s duty to assist unrepresented parties; afterthought complaints at revision stage. * Debt recovery – private loans cannot be deducted from terminal benefits without separate proof.
|
16 May 2022 |
|
Electronic filing proof established the applicant filed within time and Regulation 34(1) notice was complied with; preliminary objections overruled.
* Labour law – Revision of arbitration award – Limitation period under section 91(1)(a) ELRA – six weeks from service. * Civil procedure – Electronic filing – Rule 21: electronic submission date constitutes filing date. * Labour law – Regulation 34(1) ELR (General) Regulations – notice of intention to seek revision. * Practice – admissibility of e‑filing proof attached to submissions to determine preliminary objections.
|
13 May 2022 |
|
Whether employees were casual or unspecified-term and whether dismissal for alleged strike was substantively and procedurally fair.
Employment law – classification of employees (casual/daily vs unspecified term); industrial action – protected dispute of right versus illegal strike; unfair dismissal – substantive and procedural fairness; audi alteram partem; remedies – compensation for unfair termination.
|
13 May 2022 |
|
Court upheld employment and reinstatement but set aside CMA award of retrospective minimum-wage arrears for lack of jurisdiction.
* Labour law – employment relationship – proof of employment – burden of proof under section 15(6) ELRA when written particulars absent.
* Evidence – admissibility of secondary evidence (photocopied attendance registers) – objection must be raised at trial; cannot be first raised on revision.
* Jurisdiction – limits of CMA powers – recovery of underpaid wages under Minimum Wage Order falls within District/Resident Magistrate Court (section 41(3) LIA); CMA cannot award retrospective minimum-wage arrears 2013–2020.
* Remedies – reinstatement and ordering written contracts permissible where employment relationship is established.
* Computation of terminal benefits – to be based on last gross salary received, not automatically on minimum wage order.
|
13 May 2022 |
|
CMA lacked jurisdiction over public servants' terminal-benefits claims where statutory administrative remedies were not exhausted; CMA proceedings quashed.
* Labour law – jurisdiction – disputes involving public servants – requirement to exhaust Public Service Act remedies (s.32A) before invoking CMA; CMA lacks jurisdiction where administrative remedies not exhausted. * Procedure – parties bound by pleadings; court confined adjudication to matters pleaded. * Relief – quashing of CMA proceedings and ruling granting condonation due to lack of jurisdiction.
|
13 May 2022 |
|
Failure to administer oath to CMA witnesses vitiated proceedings; award quashed and rehearing ordered.
Labour law — CMA procedure — Mandatory oath/affirmation for witnesses (Rule 25(1) and Rule 19(2)(a), GN. No. 67/2007) — Failure to administer oath vitiates proceedings — Award quashed and matter remitted for de novo hearing before different arbitrator.
|
13 May 2022 |
|
Failure to prove administrator status (letters of administration) meant the respondent lacked locus standi and proceedings were nullified.
Land law — capacity to sue — letters of administration — locus standi — absence of proof of administrator status renders proceedings a nullity.
|
13 May 2022 |
|
Application for extension of time to restore struck-out revision dismissed for failure to show sufficient cause or credible evidence.
* Civil procedure — extension of time — requirement to show sufficient cause; hearsay allegations require corroboration. * Procedure — restoration/re‑enrolment of struck-out proceedings — necessity of evidential proof (affidavit/certified proceedings) to support reasons for non‑appearance. * Overriding objective/right to be heard — cannot be used to circumvent mandatory procedural rules or justify inordinate unexplained delay.
|
11 May 2022 |
|
Court finds it lacks jurisdiction over public service employment dispute, refuses withdrawal and leave, and dismisses the application.
Labour law — Jurisdiction — Effect of Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No.3) Act 2016 on section 32A of the Public Service Act — CMA lacks jurisdiction over disputes involving public servants; Procedural law — Withdrawal of proceedings after court directions and hearing; Court’s power when lacking jurisdiction.
|
11 May 2022 |
|
CMA lacked jurisdiction because a public servant must exhaust Public Service Act remedies (s.32A) before CMA litigation.
Labour law; jurisdiction of CMA; Public Service Act s.32A; exhaustion of statutory remedies by public servants; binding effect of Court of Appeal interpretation.
|
11 May 2022 |
|
CMA had jurisdiction because the termination predated Section 32A; one revision dismissed as time‑barred for lack of proof of timely electronic filing.
* Labour law — jurisdiction of CMA — applicability of Public Service Act Section 32A — effect of amendments on pre-existing disputes.
* Public law — non‑retrospectivity — procedural changes imposing new obligations cannot apply to causes of action arising before enactment.
* Civil procedure — time limits for revision under Section 91(1) ELRA — electronic filing requires proving system entry (JSDS) to establish timely filing.
* Remedies — out‑of‑time applications filed without leave are to be struck out/dismissed.
|
11 May 2022 |
|
A mediator cannot set aside a fellow mediator’s order; only a superior court may quash and remit the matter.
Labour law — jurisdiction and limits of mediators/arbitrators; intra‑CMA alteration of fellow mediator decisions; illegality of same‑level overruling; remedy — quash and remit to CMA for mediation.
|
10 May 2022 |
|
Court granted extension where electronic filing system failures caused a non-inordinate delay.
* Civil procedure – extension of time – sufficient cause – technical failure of electronic filing system (JSDS) as reason for delay.
* Electronic evidence – JSDS dashboard lacking filing dates – evidential weight and need for corroboration.
* Judicial discretion – leniency where delay is not inordinate and caused by factors beyond litigant's control.
|
10 May 2022 |
|
Court lacked jurisdiction because the respondent is a public service office; extension application dismissed.
Labour law — Jurisdiction to entertain employment disputes involving statutory corporations; Public Service Act — definition of public service office and public servants; binding precedent — Court of Appeal decision that statutory corporations established by Act and substantially government‑owned are public service institutions; application for extension of time dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
|
10 May 2022 |
|
Applicant constructively dismissed by employer’s willful failure to pay salary; awarded compensation and terminal benefits.
Employment law – employment vs agency relationship – constructive dismissal for non-payment of salary – compliance with internal dispute procedures – limitation of actions.
|
10 May 2022 |
|
Struck-out execution proceedings render prior execution orders unenforceable; revision is overtaken by events.
Labour execution — warrant of attachment — payment into decree-holder’s account — effect of striking out execution proceedings — striking out renders prior orders unenforceable; revision overtaken by events.
|
10 May 2022 |