abdalah mabdalah vs lake cement limited 2022 tzhcld 13 7 january 2022

abdalah mabdalah vs lake cement limited 2022 tzhcld 13 7 january 2022

The applicant, a driver, was not in a professional or managerial cadre and thus the fixed term contract was void ab initio under Section 14(1)(b) of the ELRA. However, even if the contract was valid, the repeated renewals created a reasonable expectation of renewal, requiring the employer to give earlier notice of non-renewal. The respondent failed to provide such notice, entitling the applicant to one month salary in lieu of notice, but not to reinstatement or further terminal benefits as the contract expired by effluxion of time.

Citation
abdalah mabdalah vs lake cement limited 2022 tzhcld 13 7 january 2022
Parties
Applicant: Abdallah M. Abdallah; Respondent: Lake Cement Ltd
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
7 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Labour Revision / Judgment
Outcome
Partly allowed
Legal Topics
Fixed Term Contracts, Unfair Termination, Reasonable Expectation of Renewal, Notice of Non Renewal, Terminal Benefits
Source Language
English
Labour Law Fixed Term Contracts Unfair Termination Reasonable Expectation of Renewal Notice of Non Renewal Terminal Benefits

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdallah M. Abdallah

Applicant

Lake Cement Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Revision / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's termination was unfair
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was entitled to notice of non-renewal
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was entitled to terminal benefits

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant, a driver, was not in a professional or managerial cadre and thus the fixed term contract was void ab initio under Section 14(1)(b) of the ELRA. However, even if the contract was valid, the repeated renewals created a reasonable expectation of renewal, requiring the employer to give earlier notice of non-renewal. The respondent failed to provide such notice, entitling the applicant to one month salary in lieu of notice, but not to reinstatement or further terminal benefits as the contract expired by effluxion of time.

Court Disposition

Partly allowed

Orders

  • Respondent to pay applicant one month salary in lieu of notice if not already paid
  • Respondent to issue certificate of service if not already issued