20011122 TZHC Bukoba

THE TJNID REPTJTIC O'O T.fNZA'TIA IN THE OOTJHT OF HEIT)ET i1ACTI3TRATh AT ('iTTH EXTO JIIPJSDICTICN) CIVIL AFEE.AL NO0 27/20Oi' (From Original Civil Case No0 5/2000 of Bukoba District Court f.LLIiJL.) TtvrrT .J'.JLLI\ 1)lTT.TT/ 1.1111 00 0000 00 ('0 0 0 000 0000 0 000 Cfl00 00 0.0 SO 000 0 0 Versus rptrp MULEI3A GuEST HOUSE RESPONDENT J U D G E r'i E N T BE? C HE J.1E, DjITP,7TLA (ct uris dic tic n) The memorandum of Appeal, herein after ref f erred. to as MOA had raised five grounds of appeal. They are as follows;- 1, The trial court wrongly invoked section 28 of the Security ofErnployinent Act Cap 574 to the present case as the case before the court was not falling under Act refferred. The record of evidence ShOWS the appellant stopped working without notiee. She stomped. to work without notice. Clearly that fits into pigeon hole known as Summary Dismissal 0 It means dismissal without notice 0 An employee who suffers summary Dismissal is not entitled to any eu:.p]. oyment benef'its 0 There are two cases which define summary Dismissal6 The case of (1974) 2 T.L.R. 39 which said that where the employee is dismiEsedwitbout notice, i0e Summary Dismissal the jurisdiction of the court is custed 0 In the case of KitundaSisa1EstasKatesVina_and QbJp (1970) EOAO 557 held that Summary Dismissal means diemisal without notiçe The two cases point lsrlT that where the. employee has suffered Summary Dismissal the jurisdiction of the court is ousted0 The two ceses derived attOority from section 28 of the Security of Emuloyment ct0 And for easy referrenee I quote; 28 (1) No suit or other proceedings (other tin proceedings to enforce a decision of the 0 0 0 this part) shall be en.tertined in a ny c• ivil court with aeperd to the sumeary diezcissel or propos e a am: cry dianissal or 5 i CdUCtlOfl by rev Of a P ocinsoneny penalty iTcu the rapes.. of SL (2) In this sectios bin :.L rocdanp' includes a cross suit or counter dci a • any set ohb ash say civil ieroceedig unher pert hI of Employment O:cbinc ace The resorb. chQr,T' that the retter at and is a se it. The Loboer Qihicer rabi hi-lob, a plsint0 The plaint zis not the normal -.--r of dsalinp -Hth eenloyment matter. The sechiin above eniobed says tat the court c n entertain oroceedinys to enhorce a decia:.on of the •hinieter or the Poard under a reterance meer tue irt The Suaarry Piemiseel ama ndt reh-erred to the Po:d The appellant was not ah:rorf oprortaniby to e:arr - beb ore the I.osrci to en Jean the Jet us of Gunlory Dismissala This roe an irmrorer TFy of hsndi.np a. labour metier, It so only the Poerd which 1505 Gt:tutory buty to te.rdle mothers involvinp semacry di: mis eel Gosely the Lebour Othicer rn-s rrong in hilinp a suit instsar of obtaining a hecree from he IBoanci oh crams Gocociliation BoerU The suit is un:benshle all the core it ohhnds the provisions of S. 28 of the i3scunity of iboloy'snt I.ct 11- From the above look of events it is crystal clear the court has no jurisoiction to entertc.in he suit in virtue of G 28 of bi -a Security of En - hovoent ct ITavis., so ohnerved I thinh it is- unnecessary to resolve oh: or points a cs:rinp in toe GO s tray have no base Tbo is hi ac.e5fl ebt Sgd; JJ1 Giotela PRM Ajity I:.t..Turiahiction - lGi/2OOl 22/11 /2001 - Oorna JOROK Jib -nra •- AS DR Arpehlnnt) Present in person 0 0/ Respondent Present SADICK F. JABU The I'Ianager Muleha Guest House0 B/C; Grace DR The matter is comin before me for delivery of the judgement only following the fact that the DR is on safari to BIPA1RANL10 for a High Court Session 9 and he has instructed me to complete this duty for and on his behalf by telephone 2gd; J0I:T0K Tftamwa Ag0 DR 22/11/2001 Court; Delivered judgement in the presence of both parties this 22nd day of Nevember 2001i Right of Apesl explained to partiea nd they are further nformed that, there is no any order for costs in tis judgeent, J.H.K.Utawa \ Ag 0 DR / / 22/11/2001