Court name
High Court of Tanzania

Abadiah Selehe vs Dodoma Wine Company Limited () [1990] TZHC 11 (28 August 1990);

Law report citations
1990 TLR 113 (TZHC)
Media neutral citation
[1990] TZHC 11
Masanche, J.

Masanche, J.: This is an ex-parte chamber application for leave to apply for an order of certiorari and mandamus. It is accompanied by an affidavit. The affidavit is however not an elegant one. This is not surprising B because as I came to discover later, the applicant is pursuing the matter himself without the assistance of a lawyer.
From the affidavit and indeed entire record, I gather the following facts:
That the applicant got employed by Dodoma Wine company (popularly known as DOWICO) as Laboratory C Assistant Grade II and was a Production Supervisor in the wine production section. Sometime at the end of December, 1986, it was discovered that each time workers reported for duty in the morning, they found wine making equipment in disarray, suggesting that some other people had been using the equipment the previous night. D It became clear that a group of workers were making wine outside normal working hours, and this wine got smuggled out of the gate and got sold in town.
Then, one day, the applicant and two other members of staff found some undergrade wine in a shop in town. That E wine was not standard wine made by DOWICO. All these happenings never got reported to the Management which got annoyed, it seems, and dismissed the applicant from his job. There was a second worker who also got dismissed but it is not known how he is pursuing his case.
It is that dismissal that the applicant is aggrieved of.
F The matter went to a Conciliation Board and it appears the applicant lost the case. He appealed to the Minister for Labour against the decision of the Conciliation Board, confirming the dismissal by the Management. Unfortunately, the appeal was not taken up as the application was out of time in so appealing. It is, therefore, G against all such unsuccessful attempts that the applicant has decided to come to the High Court and pursue the matter by way of certiorari and mandamus.
The law about orders of certiorari and mandamus is quite clear in this country, and I can do no better than quote my brother Samatta J. (as he then was) in the case of Moris Onyango v The Senior Investigating Officer H Customs Department Mbeya Criminal Application No. 25 of 1981; wherein he said:
It is entirely correct preposition to say that an order of mandamus is a discretionary remedy. The order is not one of right and it is not issued as a matter of course. The purpose of the order is to supply defects of justice. It will therefore issue I where there is no

specific legal remedy for enforcing the specific legal right claimed or where, although there is an alternative legal A remedy, such mode of redress is considered by the court to be less convenient, beneficial and effectual. As a general rule the court will refuse to issue the order if there is another convenient or feasible remedy within the reach of the applicant (Emphasis Supplied) (Also see the case of Lakaru v Town Director (Arusha) (1986) TLR page 326.) B
Again in the case of Assistant Registrar of Buildings v Frederick Kibwana Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1978 (Court of Appeal) the Court there has said: C
Certiorari being a discretionary remedy for courts to issue cannot be issued in a case where there is already a contractual relationship between landlord and tenant, a relationship of a commercial or business nature. The recourse D to the courts of law to adjudicate on the breaches of contract would be better procedure.
In this instant matter before me, the applicant was a worker, employed by DOWICO. There was, therefore, a E contractual relationship between him and DOWICO a contract of service. If, therefore, the applicant, feels that he has been unjustly dismissed, he may sue the employer for wrongful dismissal. In short, therefore, there is a remedy and a forum. Leave to apply for orders of certiorari and mandamus is refused. F
Order accordingly.