elihudi mathew ngore vs national engineering co ltd another 1992 tzhc 66 11 september 1992

•SBE UTOT5D REPUBLIC OF TAHZLIMXA IF THE HIGH COURT OP I/aJZ/iNIA .431 MR ES aAjAr.ft MISCELLAKECUS CI7I I CilUSID MO* 11$ O*1 19&9 m a n n m s s iT ................................................................ m e * vp rsu s \s 1* OHE ITATXOm EtJGIKEEaBKJ £0* IffiD,) U IiAbooh. commissioner ) * * * 1 -U L I N Q t «, „ T ! 18 aEPli0a,tlon fa r OTtes °f l MS m n daw = 6 , * ^ (ta’ ion ^ th0 ° ” H w io «a - foe tojjouB. i t ls supported v . T f * 0f “W 11^ E Lih u di ffgoajo ^ m c c o e ^ by 0 4 * ™ * o f fao ia which sots out *bhc r e lie f olaiood. , " Me. Ifatea, lo a n e d oounsol f OT tho applicant sutaittod ^ -jw, oourtoraffidcvit of tho 2nd respondent's offioo r one MuloiBBi wrs ta0aUS° “ ■ =“ »“ * * « « * • r t i o h paragraphs « , ina?1- on JWcaaoflGO o^-^»SK»aoa.t. AX& sM ch an h is ija£*rn~M -. ir« , ■., .T _ OH fixs B o je p c ^ c ; ■•dxcrtt ifc o appllorAion should bo ^r.ntod, * In roply, f t . Murucoruea, Senior labour O ffic e r fo r tlo (tomisalonor tm labour said that ^ ^ ^ OIlr_llojieod ^ tho ^ ^ * ° furtllor ® a t tho applioant HOB clisniBBod unci* ♦to Soouwty o f Eqploynoirt Act, Cap 574 and a.H. 98 of 15* 5, w =$564, 0=# * °fe m u l tbs TOttor to tbo e o n o i l l ^ a * » » * . ^ feo hcQ$liy to *. tho a p p H o a * roquostod tho opinion of th0 Loboar on U fl **«> « » Icbaur O ffloor dooidod that tho applicant ^ ta Hfiaaeooont of tho business of his onployor and that tho oaso « V V H bo S O ta w d to tho I n d u s t r y Court. 3 rt * » a * r a p c * ^ <*Jo«tea * » 1 M * to tho CoEEiseionor fo r labour Baying that tho opinion o f tho M k w O fficer disclosed oanifost orrc* of Lm and that tho applioant * . r.... , OTO‘rtit>rto “ dispute oeotast h is onployor. Mr. M ru e ao ^ ° C' ° soctlon 3 ° f th0 Pornanont Labour Iribunal Act Ho. 41 o f Mfi* •CJifl. tho oaso o f Zcdbia manssnwin nn„i a * a at t o ’s w t h . - 't ^ ? tgylcas M £*..t , j , K ,J s.^Lanfy q r r “ 34 to ^ s l ”Glo ooployoo could not so to tho Pcmoroom Labour (Tribunal, Mr* Mrugoruga went on to s ta te th a t •'ho Labour Conuissioncr rev erse d the d o cision o f tho Labour O ffic c t ancl d irc« tod tho Labour O ffic o r to convono tlic nooting o f the C on cil .at io n Boorfl. and to hoar the disputo* Both p a r tie s ware hoard and tl:cn tho a p p lican t appoalod to tho M inistor who tlion oonfirnod the dooiaicm o£ th e C o n c ilia tio n Board, Ho s a id fu rth e r th a t u n ier se c tio n 27 o f S o o u rity o f Employment A ot, tho d o cision o f tho M inister WV,s f i n a l and oonelusivou Ho ro fo rro d to tho case o f Mahona v U n iv ca sity o f Itar os Salaan £1981/ TIE 55 whoro ho s a id th a t tho Court 1 i l d th a | c» ap p lican t had to fo llo w only one law* Ho prayed in conclusion fej? fho d is n is s a l of the a p p lic a tio n . Mr* Nassoro, lonxned counsol fo r the M l rospondoni c r itio ls o A tho a p p lic a tio n which had boon ‘brought under wrong p rovision s o f tho law* Ho c r it i c iz o d a lso the statonont acconpanying tho a p p lic a tio n Which ho sa id was lik e a p la in t which was seeking even damages* Concerning tho a f f id a v it sweoen by Mr* Mulokozi Mr, Nassaro suboi1>#ofl. th a t i t was not dofo ctivo in th a t what tho deponent had s a id was according to h is own knowledge, Mr* Ifcssoro then went on to deal w ith tho nor i t s o f tho a p p lica tio n * Ho s o t out the f a c t s in the caso and continued th a t applioant was not in the management o f h is employer* s "business* H© s a id th a t tho ap p lican t f e l l sq.uaroly w ith in the p rovision s o f thQ S o o u rity o f Eoploynont A ct and th a t the p ro visio n s o f the. A ot rose follow ed* Ho su bn ittod th a t tho n a tte r was ro fo rro d to the C o n c ilia tio n Board and i t was w h ile tho n a tte r was ponding beforo the Board th c | tho applioant sought s o c r o tly and g o t an opinion o f tho Labour O i^ e e r t o the o ffo o t th a t ho was in tho nanogonent o f h is onployor^s b u sin e ss, B ut th at opinion was ohallongod b y the 2nd respondent who appealed $0 tho Labour Conmissionor who revoked t h is opinion which was wrong* Uhen the n atto r a t the C o n c ilia tio n Board was doto rn in ed 0 The ap plican t appealed to tho M inistor ag a in st tho d e c isio n o f tho Board* fflao M inistor asked f o r a noncrandun fro n tho 2nd rospondont and then nado h is d e cisio n which confirnod tho do cision o f the Board* Mr* Hass or o ^ argued th a t i t was the ap plican t who nado tho reforon ce to the M inister which noant th a t lac oust havo w ritte n a nonorandun oxpro^jsing h is d is s a tis fa c tio n * Iir* ITassoro wondered how the a p p lican t was eon p lain in g th a t ho was not givon a hooding* Ho s a id th a t so c tio n 43 o f the S e c u rity o f Bnploynont Aot roq.uiroe on ly nonoranda to go to tho M in ister : and not an appoccranco "boforo tho M inister* He*. tborecEorej found tho a p p lic a tio n to have no b a sis* * . . . . / 3, **• 3 I n a fu rth o r r o p ly ? Mr, Mcira argued. th a t th ere wr.c tho issu o whether tho a p p lica n t was an onployoo in tern s o f soction. 3 o f tho S o c u r ity <>f Employment Act. and that i t i/as tho C e r t if ic a t e o f tho labour O ffio o r w iich was ro lovn n t and fu rth e r th a t onoo tho o o r t ifio a t o i s ■issu o d i t cannot bo i-ovokod and tho Act does not becono oporativo v i e a v i s tho a p p lican t* Ho wont on to submit th a t even under tC i Soctcfcity o f Efaploynorrfc A c t tho r u le s o f n a tu ra l ju s t ic e were not adho.'od t o sin ce th ero was no evidence th a t any memoranda wore submitted* Concerning th-C a p p lic a tio n i t s e l f ? Mrc Maira subm itted th a t sin ce th e some utis f i l e d b y a layman and sin ce tho d e fe c ts wcro m atters o f form and not o f eubstanoe, thoro was nothing s u b s t a n t ia lly raonc w ith tho application. ITo s t i l l submitted th a t tho a f f id a v it o f tho 2nd respondent was d e fo c tiv o in fqro and th a t the Commissioner had no ju r is d ic t io n in the n a t t e r , I proposo to deal w ith the qu estio n o f dofoot f i r s t f a r ijhe statem ent and tho counter a f f i d a v i t . I t i s tru e as conceded to b y Mr. Maira th a t tho statomont and t i t l e o f tho a c tio n are d e fe c tiv e in th a t tho t i t l e i s r e f e r r in g to "the Commissioner fo e Labour trib u n a l under the Permanent Labour Tribunal Noa 18 o f 1977” wharons thoro i s no such th in g xn t h is matto r 0 There was no Permanent Labour Tribunal nor i s th ere a "Oonnissionor o f labour S r it u n a l." Secondly tho claim o f oonponsation and c o s ts i s niseaidod., Thoro i s no suoh th in g in 3uoh an a p p lic a tio n * However, in view o f tho f a c t th a t loavo was g iv e n b y t h is C o u rt to apply f o r tho ardces w ith t h is statomont o f f a o t s , and in view o f tho f a c t th a t tho person who f i l o d t h is a p p lic a tio n was not a law yer, and fu rth e r in viow th a t tho d e fe c ts go to farm rather than su h stan co, I w i l l a llo w tho a p p lic a tio n bo stand and to bo dotorninod. As f a r tho countorx^ridavxfc o f tho 2nd rospondont, I aacoo w ith Mr. Nasscro th a t th ere i s nothing wrong w ith t h is as tho deponent has- v e r i f i e d th a t what he has deposed i s true acoccrdiog to h is knowledge, ;; In any oaso, oven i f the c o u n te r -^ fid a v iT o f 2nd rospondont i s strv o k o u t and not a cted upon, th ere i s s t i l l the ca u n ta e o ffid c w it o f the 1 s t \ responder t 0 \ Now I propose to deal w ith tlio m erits o f tho a p p lic a tio n , Reading th rou^ i tho statement- 0^-50-^--?-^ ingress-:on th a t tho complain* o f & o a p p lica n t i s th a t ho was not g iv e n an o p p a r ^ t y to sroeojrt h i s ocso b o fo ro the Labour Commissioner* (See paragraphs 9t 10 end 11)* ......... A . - 4 - Shore is socks nontion o f the applicant having been ro~i istotcd by ifco Labour O fficer in pcrcsraphs 7 and 8 of tho statement. W o is also an allegation that the procedure of solvinc labour disputes ms not £ollgwod. in tho a ffid av its of tho applioant thoro is or, that tho Gcj^oral Manager hod no power to toruinata the ap£aioazit-*e SQBTfi^as. Ihoro is no doubt that tho Honoko Dis+riot Labour oMoor gav^ an opinion that tho applioant was in tho nanagonent of his oaployoefe business. But his dooision was ororrvOod by the Labour Ccoiasionao- Mj?l JSaica has argued that tho revocation of the Labour Officer*s option by tho Labour Connissionor was not offactual. Mr. Mrugcanigrv and Mr. Hassoro t^guod that tho revocation was effective end as a »QSU» the natter was dealt with by tho Conciliation Board. 1 pegft* fho Gaf^uacnt of -the respondents booauso the Connissioner for leOjou* dm ffco head of tho Labour Division nust hovo power to rcctify wlint he fiato *o bo *rong. I t cannot bo seriously argued that tho Labour Comiwioaae is not ooopctcnt to overrulo or revoke what a Labour Offioor 1ms dono whore he deens it f i t . This is what the CooaissW r did. Then the*e followed the nooting of the Conciliation Board which dccided to- tosDi«*e tho sorvioos of tho applicant. (Ehon tho applicant appealed to tho Minister. Eero again I agree with the respondents that since tho applicant appealed to the Minister, he nust have presented a n o n o ra ^ , Minist^ * I also agree that such a nenorandun of appeal ^ nn opportunity to bo hoard. !Tho applicant cannot complain that L o-«, not Given on opportunity to bo hoard when i t is he who appoalod to the Ministor. Surely the appeal was not mdo orally but in writing. Tho prayers of tho applicant are that the decision of tho Comiseloner was wrong and i t should bo quashed. But in accordance with section 27 I f m Aot, tho decision is final and conclusive and cannot be challenged C any-court; oaccopt on the question 0f lack of jurisdiction or inftingoncng of the rules of natural justice. Tho applicant has not proved lack o f * jurisdiction or breach of tho rulos of natural justioo. liar has i t been Jffovod that there is an error apparent on tho record in the dooision of . fho labour Connissionor. Woodless to say tho Connissionor was porfoas- \ a iac « P . o f the of * d e l e g a t i o n t h o s e duties' t o h in * - 5 - n is toon tls , ib o v e tSDt a E p llo Jltio ll ^ ^ ^ oqffeafcliflhoC* I t o u st f a i l and I d ism iss i t . JUDGE 11/ 9/1992 D e liv e re d to tho oppliocvnt Me. JSbm oeo & Mr. M r u g a i^ a fee* tho r e s p o n d e n t* p re s o rt. AT BAR IS SALtuxM 11 SEa?3SME3Ry 1992