BANK OF TANZANIA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZNAIA LABOUR DIVISION AT ARUSHA LABOUR APPLICATION NO. 17548 OF 2024 (Originating from an Award of the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration Arusha in employment Dispute No. CMA/ARS/ARB/01 of 2013 by Hon. SJ. Mnzava, Arbitrator dated 20/06/2016) BETWEEN BANK OF TANZANIA........................................................ APPLICANT VERSUS ZUHURA MBULU........................................................................ RESPONDENT RULING 28/10/2024 & 01/11/2024 MWENDA, J.: By a chamber summons lodged on 5th day of August, 2024 under Rule 24 (1), 24 (2) (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), Rule 24 (3) (a), (b), (c) and (d); Rule 55 (1), (2) and Rule 56 (1) and (3) of the Labour Court Rules, 2007 of Government Notice No. 106 of 2007, the applicant is seeking this court's pleasure to extend or abridge time to file an application for revision against an award of Hon. Arb. SJ MNZAVA dated 20th June 2016 with Ref. CM A/ARS/ARB/01/2023. 1 | Page This application is supported by the affidavit sworn by Deodath Mushi, Senior State Attorney. The respondent did not file any counter affidavit. In his affidavit supporting the application, the learned State Attorney deponed, among other facts, that sometimes between 18th August 1990 and September 1993, the respondent, together with nine (9) others, while in the course of employment occasioned a pecuniary loss of TZS 237,514,325.00 leading to their arraignment before the District Court of Arusha in Criminal Case No. 295 of 1993.That after the trial, they were all found guilty and sentenced to serve seven(7) years jail imprisonment. Aggrieved, the respondent and others, successfully appealed to the High Court and subsequently, the respondent requested to be reinstated. As the respondent was fending his case and was out of work for over 18 years, the applicant opted to terminate her employment effectively from 07th September 2O12.Aggrived, the respondent referred the matter before the CMA alleging unfair termination, the matter which was adjudged in her favor. This award prompted the applicant to file Labour Revision No. 47 of 2016 which was dismissed for being incompetent by this court. As such, the applicant decided to challenge the said order of dismissal instead of striking out before the Court of Appeal which ruled in the applicant's favor. It is further deponed 2 | Page that after the ruling of the Court of Appeal, the applicant spent five days excluding the weekend to prepare this application. Apart from alleging illegality on the CMA's award as appearing at paragraphs 17th and 18th of the affidavit, it is deponed that the applicant's delay was based on technicality. Desirous of seeking extension of time to file revision against the award of the CMA, the applicant filed the present application. On 28/10/2024 when this application came for mention, MR. MBISE, learned State Attorney and Mr. SHADRACK MOFULU, learned counsel for the respondent were in attendance and both showed readiness to proceed with the hearing. On his part, Mr. MOFULU informed the court that they did not file counter affidavit as they have no objection against the application. He then prayed the prayers in the applicant's chamber application to be granted. On the other hand, while pleased with the argument in support of the application by MR. MOFUU, Mr. Mbise briefly submitted that since there is no objection from the respondent's side the court also be pleased to grant the prayers in this application based on the reasons advanced on the affidavit. 3 | Page From the above submission from the counsel for the parties, the question that arises is whether the applicant advanced sufficient reasons for the delay. It is trite that granting or refusal of extension of time is the domain and discretion of the court. However, such discretion must be exercised judiciously. In so doing the court must consider if sufficient reasons or good cause for delay are portrayed by the applicant. What is a good cause is a question of fact, depending on the circumstances of each case. For that reason, many and varied circumstances could constitute good cause in any particular case. As hinted above, the applicant's first reason for delay was technical delay referring to the order of this court dismissing the applicant's application for revision instead of striking it out, the order which prompted the applicant to seek redress from the Court of Appeal which ended up successfully by substituting the order of dismissal with striking out. From the record, it is evident that by the time the ruling of the court of appeal was delivered on 11th July 2024, the applicant was already out of time. This chain of events clearly supports the applicant's argument that the delay was nothing but technical and I find no reasons to fault her. 4 | Page In the Applicant's affidavit, there is another issue of concern which is raised in support of the application. The same is illegalities on the CMA's award as appearing at paragraphs 17th and 18th of the affidavit. Principally, a claim of illegality or otherwise of an impugned decision has, all along, constituted a good cause for extension of time. See the case PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE AND NATIONAL SERVICE vs DEVRAM VALAMBHIA (1992) TLR. 185 and LAURENT SIMON ASSENGA V. JOSEPH MAGOSO AND 2 OTHERS, CIVIL APPLICATIN NO. 50 OF 2016 (CAT AT DAR ES SALAAM, UNREPORTED). In sum, I find that the applicant has shown good cause for the court to exercise it discretion to extend time. Accordingly, the application is hereby granted. The applicant is given 21 days, from the date of this ruling to file application for revision against the award of the CMA dated 20th day of June 2016 with Ref. CMA/ARS/ARB/01/2023. It is so ordered. DATED at ARUSHA this 1st day of November, 2024. 5 | Page