ardoni mathias mtengule vs minister for labour and youth development another 2000 tzhc 34 23 march 2000

IN T H E H IG H C O U R T O F T A N Z A N IA (D ’ S A L A A M M A IN R E G IS T R Y ) AT PA R ES SALAAM M I S C . C I V I L C A U S E N O . 4 7 O F 1999 A B D O N I M A T H I A S M T E N G U L E ...... A P P L I C A N T VERSUS 1. M I N I S T E R F O R L A B O U R A N D Y O U T H D E V E L O P M E N T 2. A T T O R N E Y G E N E R A L ......................................R E S P O N D E N T S RU LIN G M S U M L .IK : A p p l i c a n t ’ s e m p l o y e r d i sm i sse d him sum ma rily for being absent from work without rea so n ab le cause. His appeal to the Conciliation B o a r d w as su c c e s s fu l and it w a s ordered that he be reinstated. The em p lo y er ap p ea le d to the Minister. The decision o f the Conciliation Board was set aside and agreed with the e m p l o y e r that applicant should be sum ma rily di sm i ss ed . T h i s decision w a s giv en on 20/1 1/9 7. In this application, which w a s filed on 7/5/99 the applicant is se eki n g an extention o f time to file an application for leave to apply for the prerogati ve orders o f M a n d a m u s and Certiorari against the decision o f the Minister. T o sup p or t the a p p li ca t io n , ap pl ic an t has filed an affidavit. In his affida vit, a p p l i ca n t s a y s that though the de ci si on o f the Minister w a s is sued on 20/1 1/97, the s a m e w a s c o m m u n i c a t e d to him on 13/4/98. B e c a u s e he is a laym en, a p p li ca n t g o e s on to say, he had to look for legal opinion on what st ep s he s h o u l d take in order to ch a l le n g e the s a i d de ci si on o f the Minister. A m o n g other s t e p s w hich the ap p li can t took w a s to write to the Atto rn ey Gene ra l and the O f f i c e o f the Prime Minister. The appli cant g o e s on to s a y that b y the time when he w a s a d v i s e d to se e k re dr ess b y w a y o f j u d i c ia l revi ew, the limitation p eriod o f si x m o n th s had elapsed. B e s i d e s the affida vit , the C h a m b e r S u m m o n s is a l s o a c c o m p a n i e d with a sta te m en t in which the d ec is io n o f the Minister is faulted for u p h o ld i n g the p u n i sh m e n t o f s u m m a r y d i s m i s s a l while appli can t w a s first o ff en de r o f the di sc i pl i n ar y o f f e n c e o f ab se n t ee i sm . A c c o r d i n g to the di sci pl in ary co de , such p u n i s h m e n t is for a fourth offender. T h e highest puni sh me n t for the ap p li can t w o u l d h av e been a fine as i m p o s e d by the Co n cil iat io n Board. Aftei c o n s i d e r i n g the s u b m i s s i o n s o f both si des, appli can t has m a n a g e d to off ei r e a s o n a b l e c a u s e w h y he had been un able to file the intended a p p li ca t io n for j u d i c i a l re v i ew within the limitation period. T h e d e l a y w a s not c a u s e d b y any n e g l i g e n c e on his part. Furthermore, from the statement, the intended ap p l i ca t i o n for prero gat ive orders has p n m a facie legal support. In the 3 ci r c u m s ta n c e s o f this case , this additional fact m a k e s m e inclined to acce pt the application. In conclu sion, this application is granted as prayed. C JA.JI K I O N G O Z I . 23/3/2000 For the applicant: present in perso n For the respondent: Chidou.