cosmas peter matokeo vs ako group limited 2023 tzhc 23414 12 december 2023

cosmas peter matokeo vs ako group limited 2023 tzhc 23414 12 december 2023

The applicant was validly terminated for absenteeism, a serious misconduct under the law, and the use of two names did not create material confusion as evidence showed both referred to the applicant. The CMA properly awarded repatriation costs, but erred in not awarding subsistence allowance for the statutory...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
cosmas peter matokeo vs ako group limited 2023 tzhc 23414 12 december 2023
Parties
Applicant: Cosmas Peter Matokeo; Respondent: AKO Group Limited
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
12 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Labour Revision Application / Ruling on Merits of Revision
Outcome
Application dismissed with variations
Legal Topics
Unfair Termination, Repatriation Costs, Subsistence Allowance, Employment Contract, Procedural Fairness, Employee Identification
Source Language
english
Labour Law Unfair Termination Repatriation Costs Subsistence Allowance Employment Contract Procedural Fairness Employee Identification

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cosmas Peter Matokeo

Applicant

AKO Group Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Revision Application / Ruling on Merits of Revision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CMA erred in awarding only repatriation costs without subsistence allowance
  2. 2 Whether termination was fair considering use of two different names for the applicant
  3. 3 Whether legal procedures were followed in the termination process

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was validly terminated for absenteeism, a serious misconduct under the law, and the use of two names did not create material confusion as evidence showed both referred to the applicant. The CMA properly awarded repatriation costs, but erred in not awarding subsistence allowance for the statutory period. The award of one-month salary in lieu of notice was unjustified as the applicant breached the contract. The applicant's claim for excessive repatriation and subsistence was unreasonable; only statutory entitlements were due.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with variations

Orders

  • Award of one-month salary in lieu of notice set aside
  • Applicant entitled to TZS 500,000 as repatriation costs