adelika tadei mwano vs magua stephano miyeye 2023 tzhcld 1454 20 september 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA LABOUR DIVISION AT DAR ES SALAAM LABOUR REVISION NO. 178 OF 2023 BETWEEN ADELIKA TADEI MWANO ............................................................ APPLICANT VERSUS MAGUA STEPHANO MIYEYE...................................................... RESPONDENT RULING Date of last Order: 20/ 09/2023 Date of Ruling: 20/09/2023 MLYAMBINA, J. The Applicant prefereed this revision proceedings against the Award issued by Hon. Nyagaya, P, Arbitrator on Labour Dispute No. CMA/DSM/KIN/56/21/46/2021 dated 21st June, 2023. In response to the application, the Respondent raised a preliminary legal objection to the effect that the Revision Application is time barred. On 20th September, 2023 upon the application been called for hearing, Cosmas Maige, the Applicant's Personal Representative, conceded that the impugned Award was delivered on 21st June, 2023 and issued to the Applicant on the same date. He further conceded that the instant application was filed on 7th August, 2023 due to the internet system technical challenge. i Having heard such admission, I have taken note that the governing law in the determination of the time limit for filing an application for revision is Section 91(l)(a) o f the Employment and Labour Relations Act (Cap 366 Revised Edition 2019) which provides as follows: Any party to an Arbitration Award made under Section 88(8) who alleges a defect in any Arbitration Proceedings under the auspices of the Commission may apply to the Labour Court for the decision to set aside the Arbitration Award. (a) Within six weeks of the date that Award was served on the Applicant unless the alleged defect involves improper procurement. I have further taken note that the days for filing the applicationfor revision starts to run from the date of receipt of the copy of theAward. Counting from 21st June, 2023 to 7th August, 2023 is over and above the 42 days (six weeks) required under the provisions of Section 91(l)(a) o f the Employment and Labour Relations Act (supra). Indeed, any submission in respect of grounds for extension of time ought to be brought by way of a proper application supported with an affidavit. Consequently, in terms of Section 3(1) o f the law o f Limitation Act [Cap 89 Revised Edition 2019], the application is hereby marked dismissed for being time barred. I lastly advise the Applicant not to come back and re-open this matter by seeking extension of time. [See East Africa Development v. Blue Line Enterprises Ltd, Civil Appeal No. 101 of 2009 Court of Appeal of Tanzania of Dar es Salaam (unreported)]. Let costs be born by each party. It is so ordered. Y J . MLYAMBINA JUDGE 20/ 09/2023 Ruling delivered and dated 20th day of September, 2023 in the presence of the Applicant, her Personal Representative one Cosmas Maige > and Counsel Fredrick Kitwika for the Respondent. JUDGE 20/ 09/2023