tanzania posts corporation vs jumanne gaudence and 4 others 2023 tzhc 21855 5 october 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT Of TANZANIA LABOUR DIVISION AT KIGOMA REVISION NO. 8 OF 2022 (Originating from REF. NO.CMA/KIG/175/2020/17/2021) TANZANIA POSTS CORPORATION APPLICANTS VERSUS JUMANNE GAUDENCE lST RESPONDENT SAMSON SAMWEL. 2ND RESPONDENT IDDY KIZIGO 3RD RESPONDENT KASIMU JUMA .. ., 4TH RESPONDENT JOHNSON KIGOGO STH RESPO JUDGMENT 25/7/2023 & 5/10/2023 MLACHA, J. This revision seeks to revise and vacate the decision of the Com for Mediation and Arbitration for Kigoma (the CMA) made in Labo spute Ref. No. CMA/KGM/175/17/2021. The resspondents, Jumanne Gaudence, Samson Samwel, Iddy Kizigo, Kasimu Juma and Johnson Kigogo e the applicants at CMA. The applicants, Tanzania Posts Corporation, were the respondents. It is a case for unlawful termination and payment o inal benefits. The respondents won the case. The records show that there has been earlier attempts at the the CMA and before this court on the same 1 m a tte r w ith o u t s u c e s s . T h e la s t o r d er o f th is c o u r t h a d th e e ffe c t o f re fe r in g th e p a rtie s b a c k to the C M A h e n c e th e h ea r ing whic h led to th e de c is io n w hic h is s o ugh t to b e revised. The records show that the respondents entered into individual contracts with the applicants (which are similar) in 2008 and 2009 to clean the office on terms which are stipulated in the contracts. They worked upto 2013 when their services were terminated. They could not be paid terminal benefits hence the dispute. The central issue at the CMA and before this court is whether the respondents were employees of the applicants and if so, whether it was right to award terminal benefits to them. The CMA found that they were employees and ordered payment of salary arreas, one months salary in lieu of notice, severance allowance, annual leave and 12 months salary for unfair termination, total Tshs. 16,869,230/=. Aggrieved by the finding and decision, the applicants have come to this court by way of revision seeking to vacate the decision of the CMA on grongs stated. They are also seeking to revise an earlier decision made by the CMA in CMA/KIG/175/2020/17/2021 which extended the time and allowed the dispute to be heard out of time. Para 4 of the affidavit supporting the application has a statement of legal issues arising from the material facts. From the sateme 2 ge t s ix g ro und s u p o n w hic h th e re v is io n is s o u g h t. One, the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to determine the dispute between the parties. Two, that the arbitrator was wrong to find and hold that the respondents were employees of the applocants instead of contractors as stipulated in the contracts. Three, that the respondents had no valid contracts in s of Government Circular Ref. AC/45/260/01/5 of 19/5/2008 entitled 'Utekelezaji wa Muundo wa Utumishi' and government policy contaned in ' Sera ya Manejiment ya Utumishi wa Umma, Toleo la mwak 998'. Four,that the arbitrator erred in making the award for terminal benefits for five respondents based on the evidence of two respondents. Five, the arbitrator erred in extending the time to file the dispute (made in CMA/KIG/175/2022) for lack of good grounds to do so. Six, that the award for annual leave and other· reliefs were made wrongly. Before going to examine the parties submissions on the above grounds, I find it proper to reproduce the cotract between the parties for easy of reference. It reads in part in Kiswahili as under: "MKA TABA WA KUSAFISHA OFISI YA POSTA MKA TABA HUU umefanyika lea tarehe 24 mwezi MEI 2008 kati ya SHIR/KA LA POSTA TANZANIA/ SLP 9551/ DAR ES SALAAM (ambalo katika mkataba huu /itajulikana kama SHIRIKA) kwa upande mmoja and ndugu JUMANNE 3 GA UDENCE wa SL P 631 KIGOMA (ambaye k wa upan de m wingin e ka tika m ka taba huu a taju/ikana kama ''MKA NDA RA SF; KWAKUWA A.· SHIRIKA linah1taji otisi ya Pasta Hiyopo KIGOMA tsetisnwe. B: MAKANDARASI ameulewa na kwa hiyari yake amekubali Mkataba huu kama ulivyo. HIVYO MKA TABA HUU UNASHUHUDIA YAFUATA YO:- 1. MKANDARASI yuko tayari kutoa huduma ya kusafisha ofisi kwa gharama ya masharti yanayoonekana hapa dun: 1.1 MKANDARASI atahakikisha kuwa kazi ya usafi inafanyika kwa uaminifu na uaanga/ifu mkubwa na iwapo 1tafanywa na mtu mwingine kwa niaba yake mtu huyo atakuwa ni muangal!fu na mwaminifu na atatambulishwa kwa SHIR/KA kabla hajafanya kazi kwa niaba ya MKANDARASJ 1.2 MKANDARASI atagharamia na/au ku/ipa SHIR/KA iwapo kifaa chochote cha SHIR/KA kitaharibiwa/ kitapotea au kuibiwa huko kuasababishwa na MKANDARASI au mtu aliyeifanya kazi hiyo kwa niaba yake. 1.3 MKANDARASI atafanya usafi kila siku ya kazi {jumatatu hadi ijumaa}. Vifaa vya kufanyia usafi atapew. SHIR/KA na 4 ,.I atafanya usafi huo kila siku kwa muda usiozidi masaa mawili tangu ofisi ifunguliwe. 1.4 MKANDARASI atahaktkisha kwamba:- a) Hagusi/hachukui au kutumia v1faa vya SHIR/KA vilivyo katika ofisi husik» kwa nia yoyote nyingine isipokuwa kwa kuvisafisha kwa kutoa vumbi tu. b) Hstumii msji, umeme au huduma nyingine i/iyo katika ofisi huslk» isipokuwa kwa aji/i ya kufanya usafi tu. c} Haingii, habaki au hashindi kwenye ofisi husika isipokuws katika muda wa kufanya usafi tu na kuwa ataondoka katika eneo husika mara tu baada ya kufanya usafi. 1. 5 SHIRIKA litakuwa na mamlaka ya kumtaka MKANDARASI amtoe katika ofisi husika yeyote atakayeajiriwa na MKANDARASI iwapo mtu huyo kwa mtazamo wa SHIR/KA ataonekana kutokuwa na tabla nzur). kutofanya kazi vizuri au kuwa mzembe katika utendaji wake. 1.6 SHIRIKA halijamwajiri MKANDARASI na halitahusika iwapo MKANDARASI au mfanyakazi wake stsumis, kuugua au kupatwa na talizo /olote kattka siku ambazo mkataba huu ukiwa hai. 5 2. MA KUBA L IA NO YA FUA TA YO PIA YA MEFIKI WA KU WA :- 2.1 Upande wowote utaweza kuvunja mkataba huu kwa kuupa upande mwingine notisi ya siku thelathini {30} ya kususdio la kuvunja mkataba huu. 2.2 Malipo ya MKANDARASI yatakuwaa ni sh1!ingi Elfu hamsini na tano tu (5~000/=) kwa mwezi ambazo zitalipwa kila mwisho wa mwezi. Ndani ya mkataba huu Shinka halitalipa malipo mengine zaidi ya haya yanayotajwa hapa. 2.3 Mkataba huu utahesabiwa kuwa umeanza mnamo tarehe 01 Mwezi MAY 2008 na utaendelea hadi hapo utakapovunjika kupitia utaratibu ulioelezwa katika dondoo No.2.1 hapo juu. 2.4 Kwa madhumuni ya mkataba huu MKANDARASI na/au wafanyakazi wa MKANDARASI hawatakuwa waa11riwa wa SHIRIKA kwa namna yoyote ile. 2.5 Mkataba huu utatawaliwa na sheria za Nchi ya Tanzania 3. UMESHUHUDIWA na wahusika katika tarehe t!iyotajwa hapo juu" (Emphasis added) Mr. Nickson Tengesi state attorney who appeared for the applicants and Mr. Michale Mwangati who appeared for the resapondents submitted on one, two, four and six only. I will leave ground three and five for an appropriate time in future. Ground one is on the jurisdiction of the CMA to deal with the problem. Grounds two and six can be joined together to read, whether it was justified, based on the contract between the parties and evidence adduced, to find that the respondents were employees of the applicants and award terminal benefits. Ground four was on whether it was correct to make the finding and award based on the evidence of two witnesses alone. I will start with grounds two and six. Mr. Tengesi had the view that the contract did · not show th e respondents were employees of the applicants. He had the view t hey were contractors as reflected in the contracts, not employees. Based on this understanding, counsel had the view that, the CMA erred in finding that the respondents wer employees and make the award for terminal benefits. He argued the court to set aside the award. While agreeing that the contracts were not employment contracts, Mr. Mwangati invited the court to find that the respondents were just deceived to deny them terminal benefits. He argued the court to interpret the contracts as employment contracts because that is what was actually taking place at the place of work. They worked longer than what is seen in the contracts 7 a nd s o m e o f th em w e r e in th e jo b p r io r to th e s ign in g o f the c o n t ra c ts . H e s a id th a t the y w o r k e d u n d e r the dir e c t c o n t ro l o f the a p plic a n ts and w o r k e d fr o m 8 :30 a m u p to 3 :3 0 p m o r 4 :3 0 p m . T h ey wo r k e d m o r e th a n 4 5 h o u r s p e r m o n th . H e c ou ld n o t p ro du c e a n y d oc u m e n t s h o w in g tha t th e y e x is ted in th e jo b p r io r to th e s ig ning o f the c o n t ra c ts o r wo r k e d lo n ge r th a n w ha t is s e e n in the c o n tr a c ts . N e v e r th e le ss h e in v ite d th e c o u r t to fi n d tha t the y w e r e e m p lo y ee an d a r e en title d to te r m in a l ben e fi ts a s aw a rd e d . I h a d a cl o s e lo o k o f th e c o n tra ct. I h a v e c o n s ide r ed th e s u b miss io n s . I thin k it is tr ite la w th a t w h e r e the c o n tr a c t is in w r itin g , the d o c u m e n t m u s t s pe a k fo r its e lf . O r a l e v ide n c e c a n n o t o v e r id e wh a t is w r itt e n . F u r th e r tha t, if th e r e is a n y c h a n g e s to the d o c u m e n t, the y m us t be m ao e b y a n o th e r d oc u me n t. I h a v e n o o th e r d oc u me n t e x p la in ing o r a lte r in g th e rig h ts o f th e p a rtie s o th e r th a n w ha t is b e fo re the c o u r t. I w ill limit m y s e lf to th e d ocu m en t n o w b e fo r e th e cou rt. Th e d oc u m e n t s a y cl e a r ly th a t th e re s po n de n t s we r e 'co n tra c to r s ' re n d e r in g cl ean line ss s e r v ic e s to th e a p plic an ts . It states clarly that they are not employees of the applicants. They were to work for two hours a day for five days a week, Monday to Friday and were not supposed to stay at the place of work after finishing the work. Their payment a the mode 8 o f p a y m e n t is stip u la te d in th e c o n tra ct d ocum e n t. T h e qu e stio n o n w h e th e r th e y we re e m p lo y e e s o r n o t i5; sta ted v e ry w e ll in c lau s e 2.4 w h ic h re a d s in S w a h ili a s u nd e r : "kwa madhumuni ya mkataba huu MKANDARASI na/au wafanyakazi wa MKANDARASI hawatakuwa waajiriwa wa SHIRIKA kwa namna yoyote ile. (Emphasis added) N This literally means that, for the purposes of this contract, the contractor (the respondents) or any of his employees, shall not be employees of the corporation (the applicants). Now, if the applicants worked for more than 2 hours a day or if they did other activities more than what is stated, those were breaches of the contracts which entiled them to sue. They were supposed to file a suit in the court of competent jurisdiction for breach of contract and if proved, they could be entitled to damages. If they had a right to sue for breach of contract but could not sue, that cannot change their status to fit the situation. Neither can it have the effect of converting them to employees so as to get what they could not get from another forum. The law in clear in section 61 of The Labour Institutions Act, cap 300 and section 4 of The Employment and Labour Relations Act, cap 366 on who is an employee. They are not emmployees so to say. See also the decision of this court in OXFAM v. Omary Selemani and 6 others, 9 R e v is io n N o .4 o f 2 0 2 2 (H ig h C ou rt L a b o u r D iv is io n K ig o m a ) . W ith re s p e ct , I w ill d iffe r w ith the v ie w s o f the a rb itra tor a n d th e c o un s e l for th e re s p o n de n ts be c a a u s e th e re s po n d e n ts we re n o t e m p lo y ee s in v ie w o f th e sta tu s o f th e u nde r lin e c on tra c t w h ic h w a s th e b a s is o f th e ir re la tio n s . N e xt is g ro u nd o n e . In v ie w o f w h a t h a s be e n s a id a bo v e , th e re s p onde n ts b eing c o n tra c to rs en g a g e d to re n d e r cl e a nlin e ss s e rv ic e s to th e a p p lic a n ts a nd ta k ing th e te rm s o f th e c o n tra c ts whic h a re c le a r, th e C M A h ad n o m a n d a te in th e m a tt e r . T h e c o n tra cts n o w b e fo re th e c o u rt a re n o rm a l co n t r a c t s not e m p lo y m e n t co n tra c ts re n de rin g the CMA w it h o u t ju ris dic tio n . T h is m ad e th e p ro c ee d in g s a nd the a w a rd n u ll an d v oid . G ro n d fo u r sh o u ld n o t d e ta in u s . C oun s e l d id n o t d is p u te th a t on ly tw o re s p o n de n ts ga v e e v ide n c e . T h e iss ue is w h e th e r th e e v id e n c e o f tw o re s p o n de n ts c ould b e u s e d a s a b a s e to m ak e a d e c is io n in v o lv ing 5 re s p o n de n ts . T h is ta ke s u s to se c tio n s 1 1 0 a n d 1 1 1 o f th e L a w o f E v iden c e Ac t, C a p . 6 R . E . 20 0 2 w hic h sta te in te r a lia : "110. Whoever desires any court to give judgement as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove those facts exist. 10 111. The burden of proof in a suit proceeding lies on that person who would fa;/ if no evidence at all were given on either side. "(Emphasis added) This means that three respondents did not discharge their burden of proving their cases as required by sections 110 and 111 of the Law of Evidence Act, and thus their cases remained without proof. The evidence of the two respondents was therefore takan wrongly to extend to those who did not come to court. What was said by the two respondents should be limited to their cases not for all for all. See Akiba Commercial Bank Ltd v Prisca Anyango Raya and Another, Commercial Case No. 4 of 2005, HCT (Commercial Division) (unreported) Massati, J (as he then was). Even in representative cases, each party must come foward by oral evidence or witness statement to prove his case. That is the practce and the law. It follows that the CMA erred in making a finding and the award for all based on the evidence of two respondents. That said, with respect to the arbitrator and counsel for the respondents, the proceedings and the award of the arbitrator is found to have been made wrongly and therefore revised and vacated. It is ordered so. 11 Judge 5.10.2023 Court: Judgment delivered online trough the virtual court. I am at the Institute of Judicial Administration Lushoto and counsel for the parties are at Kigoma. Right of appeal explained. L.M.Mlacha Judge 5.10.2023 12