20100319 TZHC Mwanza

. i i i . . 1I)),-LPI 0 .. IN THE HIGH C . IJRT OF TAJANJA ~ABOUR ~IVISIO~ '1' I AT M~ANZA ;, I ' I I ·~ ' i .· · \REV,SION NO. 19 QF 2:07 . . • iI EDNA PENDAEL TENGA ............:.... APPLICANT . I t I ; .. r ·\ VERSUS PAROKIA YA BUGANDO ................ RESPONDENT I {Original CMA/MZ/292/2007) '' ·.· . II i 7 · i , ... · (,:· · Ru'ling . I· 1·. . • . . .' ·.·. ' I .. !. ' .' ·'r. \\1'6/3/2010 & 19/3/2010 I•·'. l <. -·• . \ .. 'I I' 1' : R.M. Rweyemamu J:, j .. : . • . .. .I 1- . • ·:.:,-; .' I r- I' . ' . ;, The appli9ant/employ~er se ks revision of the Co((lmission of Mediation 1 ;'. ·.·. r: ~t~~: :a~~:tJ:h:r:h:ar:l:i: ~~~(e:~:; i~:tr~r:::i~r::ed her 1 • 0 I employerirespondent to pay "twenty days salary worked by the applicant before in ' · · : ·',:.. term_,inaUon'' ~nd "salary ~aymeht deducte~ from 1992 to 2005 after deducting 10% ' !, mentioned in-ground 6 (iiv) oft e affidavit'(- ground? contained in ground 6 (iii) :r · ·, ·_ 1J' . 1 ' j\anqJiv) of her affida1it. Shf adopte~ the said 9ff u,nds at the hearing , l : . ···-.. . where: ,- she• appeared . - in person. _ . :. . .· . .· . .. ', 1I - : . . ·_ ' \' • I ,' I I i I Ii I :· r . • I r ''• I • I i- ' i • • I ----· ;:a.ffidavi,t filed in opposition, grounds of whi wer~ elaborated on by Mr. ''; ' • I . • • I I t :.Malango, advocate who app~ared for 'the respondent at the hearing. He : 'stJbrnitteij that the applican~

failed to substantiate her claims during I , arbitration and further that ayment ~f salary un~erpayments for the : claimed 21 years was time ,arred, sh~ could only claim payments for 6 : • I ' l ., .1 j i. l I . \ : In reply,the applicant subiitted that the CMA failed to condc1ct arbitration : proceedings according to la:w; that there was no arbitration hearing, I ,,, instead, ' she was only instructed I to give a breakdown of h.er clcims and did ! . not know how the final figure was arrived at. ' . . I , I ' I : I . '.. I h~v~ checked the CMA r~cord of arbitration proceedings; they indeed fall ,'; ' . ' 1 sho:rt:of qualifying as arbitjation pro~eedings as required by rule 32 of the k Labour Institutions (Mediation and Arbitration) Rules, GN 64/2007 (M&A rules!, The record d9es n+ show how the caSe 'commenced, what issues were'UP for arbitrati/)n; wrt evidence wasJea~ and the like. It would • t ·appe?r tne· parties Were orly requested to file· s~atements- themselves not indicated to be part of the record. In short, there was no record of 1 • I proceedings properly so qilled . • ~ i I i II , • f. I i i ' ,. I i . I, : 2 •·,- .,,, ' . ' • ,i ' _··,( ·0 ri: .., : • i i·:~i :1· . I ~ {0 I 3/1.-»! D \;rhis ~~~r):)19~, giV~Q d rectio~s in a nymber of cas on the JJcefsity to ,. . . •· " • . ' i !'keep a 'proper record of prodeedings. _Fortunate! , most such records now )emanating from

the CMA co~ply with the requirements, and i that this I' . I ;decision w~s made way back in 2007,: before the court had extensively ;' :_i ' \discussed-th~ iss_ue'. For benbl fit of th~- arbitrator in question however, I L .·' I ' ', . I . ;:s: 'i : ish~llq~,o~e this couri:'s. disc_ufsion on tissue in rne such d~cision. In that /' i · ·. ·. \ case,·Pro1ectJ'Jlanager Barrick Gold Mme {Bulyanh~lu)_ Vs. Adriano r '. •·1pclhiil,J°bo, ReviSio; 290/2ods, the. co~rt observed among others that: t . I . ' I . ."I have checked the CMA 'arbitrationI record~ the applicant's submission that the . I I . arbitrator failed to ikeep record of ,proceedings ~s prescribed under rule 32 of .. ! . - the Labour Institutions , I ediation and Arbitration Rules GN 64/2007 {M&A: .. .. r~J~S/ is founded.\ The r cord bear~ the applica~t's submission out in that the: . i·. ·· ,,P~?ce~dings a_re s~anty, Fnd mixed\. Second, it /S n~t clear wher~ _mediation 1 .ended and arbitration started an issue I address hereinafter." ', ·.: ' . \ I I . "!his ;court has stressed al number of\ times including the case cited by counsel of iBIDCO OIL SOAP vs ABDU SAID\AND 3 OTHERS, Revision 11/2008 where 1 .. M.andia l, as he then was\ made a number of obs,ervations which are applicable 1 .:.:to.,thefacts .. ! . ,• of thi.s case. ljhe Hon... Judge noted a11,1ong .· .... I . . others that in conducting arbitratior,

proceedings; t . I . ' 'I . I I " ... emphasis. (is) on regular and orderly progr8ss in. law and . 1 I I : · procedure_ \from commencement of an action to execution of. ' . • ' f 1 I I • I . judgement..~the furctions o~ arbitratio~ :are quasi-judicial, so arbit~ators: '. ' : 1 .- : \ 5.hould ·insi4t on basic charc;cteristics of ,orderliness and regularity in · ,, ·.. · 1· . : execution ·, ;f their duties. ·l;cki/y the Commission. has made elaborate ·'F, <I.• ,!· I, . '. i • · I .··•. ; l 1:·•. ' rules_ of prdcedure (publishe9 as GN_ 64/2907 and GN 67/2007) ... These I 1

I I I 3 ' .. ' l .l ' ~V 1~ ' 4? rules ~f procedure are subsidiary legislation nd arbitlatoia bound to . I followrules set therein" ;-, I.

I

I I I 1•, In that case, the co~rt helj that failure to keep a proper record vitiated the : ~;hole p~oceedings in?luding the resultant award,_ which it proceeded to quash. ,. ~uil~ing o~ that principle, this court obperved in Grace Wanna vs.All Terrain ,.. · ~eryicet Application No_ 16/.?00lthat: i' ! ·... ; : l • . . ·1 .-''T; arriye at a proper record of proceedings prescribed under rule 32 of the {M&A rules), the CMA, using its powers under section 15 (1) (f) of the of the Labour Institutions Act 7 or'2004, issued the Labour Institutions {Mediation and , . I Arbitration Guidelines) Rules, GN 67 0(2007, (hereinafter the Guidelines) which adc:1✓ seeks I. '. I· sp~~ifies stages and conten)f of arbitration proce.edings and if I may ' I to give arbitration proceedings attributes of legal proceedings. The stages to be 1•.r.· 1,'";·•; ' • ' i ·I,' .covered • t ar:e contained - . in Rule 18 td 26 'or the guidelines. I . I . ·\ lI. I I ; I I Proceedings complying witf, the guidelines will clearly show issues to be ( 1 , ' t arbitrated upon, evidence led by each side to prove or disprove the issues, which 'evi1ence is received, as pf. Rule 25/ it will contained arguments by way of written ~ubmissions which srould b~ indicated in the proceedings, ~r made part of ~he record where· they a,,re recewed orallr✓ also :where the arbitrator allows ' . . ·dosing arguments, they shoµld be

systematically inc!uded in the record. Further, f I I • where there were preliminary issues,· evidence and arguments by each side - . , I · should be indicated in the record. Fina/Iv proceedings should contain the award _whf~h should indicating the decision and reasons thereof on each issue resized 1 - and a summary on matters itemized under guideline 27 (a) to (f) . .' • ! I, , •. ·• To 1make. such proceeding~ orderly would by necessity require numbering the • . f ' ' . . . . • ' I I ·: ' i ' ' pages in the cause of proceedings seq!Jentiallr✓ it :would require that the written . . ) I :. ' ' I . 'notes be kept in a retrievabt form and although Rule 32 (2) of the {M&A rules) . 4 •, ·;,,, ' ,, ' · R.M.Rweyem Judge . 18/3/2010 !' ,. I r •• ,1...,1_ •. I I I: 5 i I. L l l • ·. I-· I... I j ,J ... Date: 19/03/2010 I · Coram: I Hon. R. . Rweyemamu, J. Applicant: For Applicant: Absent · Respondent: . !I For Respondent: Pius Mrkelele Secretary to the Parish for Respondent C.C. Josephine Mbasha .: Court: · This matter is ror ruling,; · th Ruling deliver1d this 19 March, 2010 in presenc~ of the parties as 1 above. R/A E plained. Order: Applica11t to ick_ knew copy of th_e decision at the MZA CMA are Office. I ,~Rweyema I ...... JUDGE 19/3/2010 I. 6