REV NO 25761 OF 2024 DOMINIC LOGISTICS TANZANIA LIMITED VRS JOEL CHARLES LALA 0001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA LABOUR DIVISION AT DAR ES SALAAM LABOUR REVISION NO. 25761 OF 2024 CASE REFERENCE NO. 202410161000025761 BETWEEN DOMINIC LOGISTICS TANZANIA LIMITED......................... APPLICANT VERSUS JOEL CHARLES LA L A ................................................... RESPONDENT JUDGEMENT Date of last Order: 26/ 02/2025 Date of Ruling: 28/ 03/2025 MLYAMBINA. 1. The Applicant herein challenges the findings of the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration (herein CMA) in Trade Dispute No. CMA/DSM/KIN/515/2023/19/2024 delivered by Hon. Abdallah, M on 27/09/2024. In the referred dispute, the Respondent filed a complaint before the CMA claiming for unfair termination against his employer, the Applicant herein. After considering the evidence on record, the Arbitrator ruled that there was no termination in this case. In addition to that, the Arbitrator awarded the Respondent six months salaries as arrears. Such decision aggrieved the Applicant. He therefore filed the present application on the following grounds: i) Whether the trial Arbitrator erred in law and fact by awarding payment of 6 months' salary without being pleaded by the Respondent. ii) Whether the trial Arbitrator erred in law and fact by making the Award based on the lie testimony. iii) Whether the trial Arbitrator erred in law by ordering ex-parte hearing of the prosecution case without giving the defence clear notice to appear. iv) Whether the Applicant is entitled to any relief. The matter before the Court proceeded by way of written submissions. Arguing the application, the Applicant enjoyed the services of Mr. Goodluck Patrice Ngomba, the Applicant's Principal Legal Officer. On the other hand, Mr. Salum L. Rugwiza, Personal Representative appeared for the Respondent. It was Counsel Ngomba's strong submission that the trial Arbitrator erred in law and fact by awarding payment of 6 months' salary without being pleaded and prayed out by the Respondent. That, the Award is not only contrary to what was pleaded and prayed but also contrary to Section 86 (1) o f the Employment and Labour Relations A ct [Cap 366 RE 2019] (herein ELRA). He stated that the Respondent's claim was relied on the unfair termination but the Arbitrator's terms of Award require the Applicant to pay him the outstanding salaries contrary to what he was praying in the CMA F.l. the Counsel urged the Court to revisit the CMA FI as a proof of his submission. It was the Counsel's view that the Arbitrator had another alternative decision such as reinstatement or re-engagement or any relief deemed fit but which is not ultra vires as against the requirements given under the document (CMA F.l) together with Section 86 (supra). On the second ground, it was Counsel Ngomba's submission that having found that the last time the Respondent was at work was in May, 2022, which was when he travelled from Songea to Kenya, the Arbitrator erred to award 6 months' wages from October, 2024 to May, 2024 which was not proven by strong and good evidence. He stated that the Respondent gave false evidence which should not be accorded. In support of his submission, the Counsel referred the Court to the case of Michael Haishi v. R, (1992) TLR 92 CA. In response, Mr. Rugwiza submitted that, failure to submit any document to challenge the presented documents was contrary to Section 39 o f the ELRA (supra). He supported the Arbitrator's findings that she exercised the powers vested to him. He was of the view that only the Respondent is in the position to challenge the impugned decision. Mr. Lugwiza also raised an issue that the Revision is contradictory for failure to comply with the parties' names to fit the qualification of being entertained simply that, the Revision and attached Award is exposed as Joel Charles Lala v. Dominic Logistics but the filed revision is titled Dominic Logistics (T) Limited v. Joel Charles Lala. In the upshot, Mr. Rugwiza submitted that this Revision fails to meet the quality of being entertained hence lacks the Legal requirements. In rejoinder, Counsel Ngoba submitted that the Respondent has already filed execution in respect of the impugned Award. He maintained that the Arbitrator awarded the Respondent reliefs not claimed. As to the concern of the parties' names, he submitted that it is not the right time to raise such objection. He added that the names are the same because even in the judiciary online portal system, the Applicant's name appear as Dominic Logistics. He therefore urged the Court to grant the application. Having considered the Parties submissions, it is my view that the Court is called upon to determine one issue; whether the Award o f six months wasjustifiable. In all of his grounds the Applicant challenges the award of six months to the Respondent as salary arears. When awarding the contested relief, the Arbitrator stated as follows: Hivyo Tume hii inaona Mlalamikaji anastahili mishahara ya miezi 8 kuanzia mwezi 10/2021 hadi mwezi 5/2022. Ambapo katika Ushahidi wake alieleza alilipwa mishahara ya miezi 2 toka kuanza kazi, kwa maana hiyo itabaki miezi 6. Kwa kuwa DW1 katika Ushahidi wake alieleza Mlalamikaji alikuwa akilipwa 500,000/= na hakueleza chochote juu ya madai ya Mlalamikaji kutolipwa mishahara yake. Hivyo Mlalamikaji anastahili malipo ya Tshs. 3,000,000/= kwa mujibu wa Kifungu cha 27(1) cha Employment and Labour Relations Act [CAP 366 R.E 2019]. The loosely translation of the above quotation is that; the Arbitrator found that the Applicant was entitled to 8 months from 10/2021 to 5/2022. In his testimony he stated that he was paid only 2 months from the commencement of his employment hence, 6 months remained thereat. That, since DW1 testified that the Applicant was paid 500,000/= but he did not testify anything with regard to the Respondent's salary payment. Therefore, the Respondent was entitled to TZS 3,000,000/= as per Section 27(1) cha Employment and Labour Relations Act [ CAP 366 R. E 2019], In the CMA FI, the Applicant prayed for the following reliefs; annual leave, notice of termination, compensation for unfair termination, unpaid arrears of 22 months and any other reliefs that is deemed fit and just to grant. Before the Court the Applicant did not dispute the fact that the Applicant was not paid his salaries on the period stated by the Arbitrator. Therefore, it is my view that since there is no proof on record that the Respondent was paid his salaries, I join hands with the Arbitrator that he was entitled to the same. The Applicant's argument that the relief awarded was not claimed is unjustifiable. As quoted above, one of the reliefs claimed by the Respondent was 22 months salaries. Having found that the alleged 22 months were not proved, the Arbitrator reduced the same to 6 months. Thus, the allegation that the relief was not claimed lacks legal basis. In the premises, since it is found that the Arbitrator properly awarded the relief claimed, I find the present application has no merit. It is dismissed accordingly. The CMA's award is hereby upheld. It is so ordered. Y. 1 MLYAMBINA JUDGE 28/03/2025 Judgement pronounced and dated 28th March 2025 in the absence of the Applicant and in the presence of Salum Lugwiza, Personal Representative of the Respondent. JUDGE 28/03/2025