ayoub yasin vs just rent aco ltd 2021 tzhcld 67 29 march 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA

LABOUR DIVISION

AT PAR ES SALAAM REVISION NO. 531 OF 2019

BETWEEN AYUBU YASSIN .. APPLICANT

VERSUS JUST RENT A. CO LTD RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT Date of Last Order: 23/03/2021 Date ofJudgment: 29/03/2021 Z, G, Muruke, J, '<4. Ayubu Yassin was employed,by SD.C'Interlogistics Limited as a driver Xk fl under the supervision of Ericsson AB-Tahzania in 2013. On 22nd January, 2015, he was transferred^to Just Rent a Car Limited. On 2nd November, 2017, he was terminatedjby respondent. Upon follow-up, of his claims he was told that respondent is facing financial difficulties, so, it took some time, to ascertain his rights as some of head of the company were outside the. couritr^^It%'a',s until early January, 2018, when applicant lodged application for^condonation at CMA. Unfortunately his application was dismisseo-fOr lack of merits. He filed Revision No. 968/2018 that ended being struck out for incompetence, with leave of 14 days to file, hence present revision. Applicant was being represented by Charles G. Lugaila, Advocate of G&C Law Chambers, while Nehemia Gabo of NEBO & CO.ADVOCATES represented respondent. Nehemia Gabo filed counter affidavit and other necessary documents on 15th November and appeared i on 6th December, 2019. Since then, no appearance has ever been made despite several court orders. Last appearance by applicant counsel was on 11st February, 2021, when informed by this court that CMA record has been forwarded and that revision application is ready for hearing. Today none of the parties appeared.

None appearance by parties or their counsels, not only is a disrespect but create chaos on entire administration of justice. This cannot be left to continue. It worth .ridting tbiat, present application is to challenge CMA ruling refusing applicant extension'of time to file dispute out of time. Yet, applicant is not'teady to prosecute his case. Despite, absence of both parties, havingW^records in place, and pleadings of both parties in this revision, it >wdfth considering reason adduced at CMA for condonation^^eas6Ws>arevrgflected at paragraph 6 of affidavit of applicant himself that(reads?K)| 6. "Ericson Management^ommertc^-fdiscussion with respondent and himself and other employees who contracts were also terminated on similar ground. Whil^iscussion were on going, I was promisessed by Ericsson that teminado^f^my contracts will be reversed. It is on that hope I verily/^dheved^that" status of my employment will after the ongoing discussion ^maintained." VW From~thds.abbvp reproduced paragraph, as found in the affidavit in support ofcgndohation at CMA, reason of negotiations with employer is not sufficient cause in the eyes of law. So, as rightly decided by arbitrator, applicanrdid not adduce sufficient cause for him to be granted extension sought. Thus, this court sees nothing worth to revise CMA decision. Revision application dismissed, for lack of merits. Z.G.Muruke

JUDGE 08/03/2021 2 Judgment delivered in the absence of all the parties. Z.G.Muruke 3