19980205 TZHC Dar es Salaam

IN TII.S HIG:::I CCU:JT OF T/,NZANIA A'l' Dfl.11 ES .'t\IJ,AM c,, ............. ~ ............ _ . ...........................~ MISC. CIVIL CAUS):; NO. 97 OF 1991 AN'J.t)NY CHIDELINGA o • o •• • • .••• • o • • • • • . • • •·•. o • .• .APPLICANT VE R S US PERSONSL M!1.NAGF..::t~ OF TAZAHA REGIONAL' LAOOUR. OFFICE DSM •• o o -~ o o , o 1o o o • o • • e • RESPONDENT -~- RULING Kaji, J. The applicant ..... ANrBONY CHIDELIGA ,.,~-~-~-....... .:is....,_,.....was employed by the 2nd respondent TAZARA ............ .-.-- as a Locomotive Driver since 1976• ,. On 18/6/1990 he was sirnmari~y dismissed:for what would appear to be negligance which caused his employer to suffer a loss of Shs. 712,800/=, He appealed before the Minister for Labour. On 6/8/1991 the Minister varied that decision to that of termina.tiono He was aggrieved. On 28/11/1991 he applied before this court fo prerogative orders cf Certiorari and Mandamus celling upon this court to remove into this court the decision of the Minister and quash it. However on or around 29/11/94 it was discovered that the applicant ha4 not applied for leave to apply for the said prerogative order as required by law 4 The applicant them applied for extension of time within which to apply for leave to apply for the above orders. The main ground being tha.t the said applicant was probably· filed on 28/11/91 along side with the applicci.tion for those 0 orders but got lost due to lapse of time. The respondents have strongly objected this application on the ground that the applicant has failed to show rcason;;;_ble cause for such a ],ong_dela:,:1 . I have carefully considered the :--:;rounds adduced by both parties. Indeed when the applicant filed his application for the prerogative orders of Certiorari and Mandanrus on 28/ll/91,. his application was still within timet He was challenging _the decision of the Minister which was made on 6/8/91, The period of six months had not yet elapsed. / ,,. .. 2 But since no application for the said orders can be made without leave by the court and since the~e is nothing indicating that 81'1 application for the Scdd leave was made and gratrted 1 the !Jllrported application made on 28/11/91 was made prematurely and was wrongly filed 1 It is hereby struck out of the record. As for as the applicant's application for extension of time within . which to file his application for leave to file an application for the above preroeative orders :Ls concerned, the applicant has failed to show reasonable cause for his delay from ~18/91 till on 20/11/94 when it was discovered that no such leave was applied for and grantedo That application is therefore dismissed with co,sts. s.N. KAJI JUDGE t:4" ......... 13/11/97 -- Court: Ruling has been delivered in the presence of Mr. Mallaba learned • State Attorney for the respondent and in the absence of the applicant's counsel (unserved) this 21st day of November, 199?. s.N. KAJI JUDGE _.,=.-o-ec I Certify that true copy of the Original, 5/2/1998 ;. I