20131115 TZHC Dar es Salaam

'I I , I. \ I IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA LABOUR DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT AT DAR ES SALAAM BARAKA JONATtfAN GAO & 35 OTHERS ................... .. APPLICANTS VERSUS TANZANIA STEEL PIPE ..................... ~··························RESPONDENT i i i RULING ON PRELIMINARY OBJECTION 29/10/2013 & 15/11/2013 S.A.N. Wambura, J. i This ruling is in respect of a preliminary objection raised by the respondent Tanzania Steel Pipe on the ground that:- The purported- application is hopelessly wanting hence renders no revision pending before the court. The preliminary objection was heard by way of w~itten submissions \ as Mr. Antony Advocate represented the respondent while the applicant appeared in person. Having gone through submissions filed by both parties, I believe the issu_es to b~ resolved are:i i . (i) Whether the applicant's application was filed out of time; (ii) Whether a notice of representation has been filed; 1 I i ' I I '• I. (ii) Whether the application filed with notice of application without a chamber summons is proper . .• 1. Has· the application been filed in time? ' I ! The applicant~:r.were granted an extension of time on 3/02/2012 to file their applicatio~.·_by ::•,;•L 16/03"/~lf'~his, ---~-1 application has been filed on i..;i··,• 21/03/2011. Five days had lapsed so the application was filed out of the time that was granted by the court. Whether it was because the order was supplied in time or not are grounds that ought to be raised ' I I ' in an application for extension of time ~ut cannot be considered at this point. Since the applicants were given an extension of time to file the application they had to comply to the time given to them. It is also worth noting, that the provisions of the Law of Umitation are I I . . . ousted by Section 43 (f) of the said Act. This court has its own Rules which provide for procedures to be followed. Other Laws can only apply where there is a lacuna in the Labour Laws as provided for under Rule 55 of the Labour Court Rules. I 2. Has ~ notice of rep~esentation been filed? It is undisputed that the applicants were represented at CMA. \ However such representation does not automatically extend to this court. More so because some applicants may not wish to persue the matter. That is why the provisions of Rule 44(2) of the Labour Court Rules come in place. It provides , and I herein I I quote:- " Where there are numerous persons having the same interests in a suit, one or more of such person~ with the 2 I , permission of the Court, appear and be heard or defend in such dispute/ on behalf or for the benefit of all persons so interested, ...... " - I j [Emphasis is mine]. i~f'• Thus failure t;.~le sucn :: ')!' ~ ~2e again invalidates the application. I .. .;..::' • accordingly uphold this ground of the preliminary objection as well. Having upheld to these two grounds, I have no reason to look into ' I I ' the last ground. Application is accordingly struck out. Applicants are advised to follow the legal procedures if they still wish to pursue the same. _;) S.A ~ra U GE 15/11/2013 I. I I ! !' I ! i' 3 I ! i' Date: 15/11/2013 Coram: 11.on. S.A.N. Wambura, Judge I Applicant: Two Present i n, f' • ,:.;;yi-·• For Applicant: Respondent: ;};• For Respondent: Mr. Shayo holding brief for Mr. Abogast CC: Happy. I j · Court: Ruling delivered this 15th day of November, 2013 at the presence of Hamis Nuhu and Another for the Applicants and Mr. Shayo holding brief of Mr. Abogast for the Respondent. 15/11/2013 I I ! i i I j 4 I I I'