20020613 TZHC Dar es Salaam

• IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (DAR ES SALAAM DISTRICT REGISTRY) AT DAR ES SALAAM MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION N0.25 OF 1996 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY CYPRIAN KA TORO KA FOR LEA VE TO APPLY FOR ORDERS OF CERTIORARY AND MANDAMUS And IN THE MATTER OF DECISION OF THE MINISTER FOR LABOUR AND YOUTH DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN CYPRIAN KATOROKA -- _......._ - ... -= RULING BUBESHI, J.: The applicant has filed this application, in terms of section 17( 4) of the Law Reform (Fatal Accident and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act No. 55 of 1968, as amended, praying for orders of certiorari and mandamus to issue so that this court quashes the decision of the 1st Respondent and compel the latter to reinstate the applicant. Both parties have filed written submissions in respect of the orders sought.· I must hasten to observe that re the order of certiorari, · the 1st Respondent's Counsel the Honorable Attorney General has conceded that the decision of the Minister did not embody reasons. That ;is indeed contrary to the rules of natural justice and there are several judicial authorities on the matter. One such decision is that of Honourable Samatta J.K. (as he then was) in the case of . Tanzania Air Limited Vs. Minister of Labour and OTHERS Miscellaneous Civil Applications No. 1 of 1995 where His Lordships amply elucidated on the failure to give reasons. I entirely agree with His Lordship observation. The applicants counsel has prayed to this Court to nullify that decision of the 1st Respondent with the resultant effect of automatically quashing the dismissal meted out to the applicant and reinstate him to his original posf. The next issue which this Court has to determine is whether having determined that the decision of the Minister was contrary to the rules of natural justice, can this court through the order of mandamus compel the 2 nd respondent to reinstate the applicant to his former post? In order to do so this court has to satisfy itself that the prevailing circumstances at the 2 nd Respondent place of work are such that the applicant can be automatically be reinstated to his former post. I think, this court cannot do so in absence of clear facts explaining those facts. It will not augur well ~f thts court w~i:e -_ to give· an order if cannot enforce even if it was by way of an order of mandamus. Si~uations may have changed, maybe the applicants position is no longer there or it has been filled up by someone else. As it is, this court agrees that the Minister's decision was issued contrary to the principles of natural justice. It is accordingly ordered that this matter be placed before the Minister for Labour for him to consider the same according to law. Application granted to the extent explained hereinabove. A.G. BUBESHI JUDGE 13/6/2002 Delivered before Chandoo for Respondents Applicant absent. 2