assad associates vs gladness justine marango 2022 tzhcld 969 27 october 2022

assad associates vs gladness justine marango 2022 tzhcld 969 27 october 2022

The applicant failed to provide a valid reason for termination as the respondent was employed as a tax clerk, not an accountant, and no evidence was provided that a CPA was required for her position. Procedural requirements for retrenchment under Section 38 of the Employment and Labour Relations Act were not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
assad associates vs gladness justine marango 2022 tzhcld 969 27 october 2022
Parties
Applicant: Assad Associates; Respondent: Gladness Justine Marango
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
27 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Labour Revision / Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Unfair Termination, Retrenchment Procedures, Compensation for Unfair Dismissal
Source Language
english
Labour Law Unfair Termination Retrenchment Procedures Compensation for Unfair Dismissal

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Assad Associates

Applicant

Gladness Justine Marango

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Revision / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a valid reason for termination of the respondent's employment
  2. 2 Whether fair procedures for termination for operational requirements were adhered to

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide a valid reason for termination as the respondent was employed as a tax clerk, not an accountant, and no evidence was provided that a CPA was required for her position. Procedural requirements for retrenchment under Section 38 of the Employment and Labour Relations Act were not followed, as there was no genuine consultation or notice. The termination was therefore both substantively and procedurally unfair.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • CMA award upheld
  • Applicant to pay respondent TZS 9,000,000 as compensation for unfair termination