AKO GROUP LIMITED V

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA

LABOUR DIVISION

AT DAR ES SALAAM REVISION APPLICATION NO. 22922 OF 2024 (Arising from an award issued on 23/07/2024 by Hon. Wilbard G.W. Arbitrator, in Labour complaint No. CMA/DSM/UBG/51/21 at Ubungo) AKO GROUP LIMITED……………….……………………….…………... APPLICANT

VERSUS LAURENT NDALECHI….……………….……………….................… RESPONDENT

RULING Date of last order:11/10/2024 Date of Ruling:17/10/2024 B. E. K. Mganga, J. Brief facts of this application are that, Ako Group Limited, the abovenamed applicant had employment relationship with Laurent Ndalechi, the abovenamed respondent. It happened that applicant terminated employment contract of the respondent as a result, the latter filed Labour dispute No. CMA/DSM/UBG/51/21 before the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration (CMA) at Ubungo complaining that he was unfairly terminated. On 23rd July 2024, Hon. Wilbard, G.W. arbitrator, having heard evidence of the parties issued an award that termination 1 was unfair and awarded respondent to be paid a total of TZS 9,476,923/= being 12 months’ salary compensation, one month salary in lieu of notice, and severance pay. Applicant was aggrieved with the said award hence this application for revision. When the application was called on for orders, I asked the parties to address the court as to whether applicant filed at CMA the notice of intention to seek revision (CMA F10) prior to filing this application and whether the application is properly before the Court. Responding to the issues raised by the court, Mangius Audax, advocate for the applicant, conceded that applicant did not file the said notice at CMA. He was quick to submit that, CMA F10 is covered with the notice of application which is why, applicant is

required to file the notice of application. With those brief submissions, he concluded that the application is properly before the court. On his part, Abdul Saidi Naumanga, Advocate for the respondent submitted that, the requirement to file the notice of application is under the Labour Court Rules, GN. No. 106 of 2007 while the requirement of filing the notice of intention to seek revision is under the Employment and labour Relations(General) Regulations, GN. No. 47 of 2017. It was also submitted by counsel for the respondent that, the notice of 2 intention to seek revision(CMA F10) and the notice of application are two different things. With those submissions, Naumanga concluded that the application is incompetent for want of notice of intention to seek revision and prayed the same be struck out. It was in my view, correctly submitted by counsel for the respondent that, the notice of application and the notice of intension to seek revision are two differrent documents filed in differrent areas for differrent purposes. The Notice of Application is a requirement under Rule 24(1) and (2) of the Labour Court Rules, GN. No. 106 of 2007(supra). The Notice of Application initiates the application before this court and it must be signed, in terms of rule 24(2) of GN. No. 106 of 2007(supra) by a party bringing the application. Therefore, the purpose of the Notice of Application is to

initiate applications before this Court. On the other hand, the Notice of Intention to Seek Revision(CMA F10) is made under Regulation 34(1) of GN. No. 47 of 2017(supra) and must be filed at CMA. Regulation 34(1) of GN. No. 47 of 2017(supra) clearly provides that the forms in the third schedule shall be used in all matters to which they refer. It is in the said third schedule where several forms such as (i) Referral of a dispute to the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration(CMA F1), (ii) Application for Condonation of Late Referral of 3 a Dispute to the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration(CMA F2), (iii) Agreement by the Parties to Extend Time for Mediation(CMA F5), (iv) Notice to Refer a Dispute to Arbitration(CMA F8) and (v) Notice of Intention to Seek for Revision of Award(CMA F10) to mention but a few are found. The purpose of the Notice of Intention to seek for revision as the name itself clearly spells out, is a notice showing that the party was aggrieved with the award. The said CMA F10 can be signed by the party to the dispute or the advocate or personal representative because there is no restriction on who should sign unlike to the Notice of Application that must be signed by the person bringing the application before this Court. It is my view therefore that, it is wrong to equate the Notice of Application to the Notice of Intention to Seek for Revision (CMA

F10). The wording of Regulation 34(1) of GN. No. 47 of 2017 shows that it is mandatory for the said CMA F10 to be filed. There is no option on that, which is why, the person who files the dispute at CMA must file CMA F1. By parity of reason, it cannot be mandatory to file CMA F1 and becomes optional to file CMA F10 while both are made under the same Regulation 34(1) of GN. No. 47 of 2017(supra). It is my considered view that, failure of the applicant to file CMA F10 at CMA prior to filing this 4 application made this application to be incompetent liable to be struck out. For the foregoing, I hereby strike out this application for being incompetent for want of the Notice of Intention to seek for revision of award(CMA F10). Dated at Dar es Salaam on this 17th October 2024. B. E. K. Mganga

JUDGE Ruling delivered on this 17th October 2024 in chambers in presence of Mangius Audax, Advocate for the Applicant but in the absence of the Respondent. B. E. K. Mganga

JUDGE 5