Court name
High Court of Tanzania

Yuasa Battery (EA) Ltd vs Conciliation Board of Dsm & Others () [1996] TZHC 10 (26 August 1996);

Law report citations
1996 TLR 367 (TZHC)
Media neutral citation
[1996] TZHC 10

Kaji, J:
This is an application by the applicant Yuasa Battery (EA) Ltd for the following A orders/reliefs:
   (i)   That time within which to apply for leave to apply for an order of certiorari to B remove into this court and quash the decision of the Conciliation Board of Dar es Salaam made on 28 February 1994 be extended by enough time as would enable the applicant to make such an application.
   (ii)   That subject to extension of time being granted as prayed in item (i) above, C leave be granted to the applicant to apply to this court for an order of certiorari to remove into this court and quash the decision of the Conciliation Board of Dar es Salaam made on 28 February 1994 in the matter involving Eliakunda Mbonea, Said A Pazi and Halima M Selemani as complainant and Yuasa D Battery (EA) Ltd as the respondents as well as the decision made on 16 February 1995 by the Labour Commissioner on a reference to him by Yuasa Battery (EA) Ltd against the aforesaid decision of the Conciliation Board.
   (iii)   That the execution of the decision of the Conciliation Board of Dar es Salaam E made on 28 February 1994 as well as that of the Labour Commissioner made on 16 February 1995 in the reference giving rise to this cause be stayed pending the determination of the application for an order of certiorari to remove into this court and quash the said decisions. F
It has been made under s 2(2) of the Judicature and Application of Laws Ordinance Cap 453, s 17(2) of the Law Reform (Fatal Accidents and Miscellaneous Provisions) Cap 360, as added by the Law Reform (Fatal Accidents and Miscellaneous Provisions) G Ordinance (Amendment) Act, 1968 and s 14(1) of the Law of Limitation Act 10 of 1971, and all other enabling provisions of law.
Upon perusing the affidavit deponed by Mr Juma Ibrahim Nzwalia who is the Assistant General Manager of the applicant company, and upon perusing the written submission of the applicant's learned counsel Mr Kisusi have been quite satisfied that the applicant's H delay was neither deliberate nor through negligence but that the applicant was first trying to exhaust all available remedies before resorting to the discretionary remedy of a prerogative order of certiorari. This was in line with the principle laid down in the cases of  I R v Hillingdon London Borough (1) and R v Paddington Valuation Officer (2).

In view of this I hold that the applicant's delay was with sufficient cause. A
For that reason I allow the applicant's first prayer.
As far as the second prayer is concerned, after perusing the written submission by the applicant's learned counsel I have been quite satisfied that the applicant has established B a prima facie case for leave to apply for an order of certiorari.
In view of this leave is granted for applicant to apply for an order of certiorari to remove into this court the decision of the Dar es Salaam Conciliation Board dated 28 February 1994 and the decision of the Labour Commissioner dated 16 February 1995 for the C purposes of the said decisions to be quashed.
Also after perusing Mr Nzwalla's affidavit especially para 14 together with the written submission of the learned counsel for the applicant I have been quite satisfied that if execution is not stayed the industrial relations at the place of work is likely going to be D damaged irreparably as such execution would mean reinstating the three employees thereby imposing upon the parties a master-servant relationship when they are still fighting fiercely in a legal battle. The industrial harmony and sound management will very E likely be jeopardised. For that reason I allow the application for stay of execution pending determination of the applicant's application for the order of certiorari.
The applicant to file the necessary papers within 14 days from the date of delivery of this ruling. F

A