LABOUR APPEAL NO 9547 OF 2024 EDWARD A GWINO VRS TANZANIA BREWERIES LIMITED

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA LABOUR DIVISION AT PAR ES SALAAM (CORAM: MLYAMBINA, J., OPIYO, J., And MGANGA, J.) LABOUR APPEAL NO. 9547 OF 2024 CASE REFERENCE NO. 202404301000009547 EDWARD. A. GWIMO MICHAEL. N. AMANI. " % JAMILA MGALUSI & 60 O TH ER S...... .................. APPELLANTS VERSUS TANZANIA BREWERIES LIMITED.,...............^../RESPONDENT RULING Date of Last Order: 29/08/2024 Date of Ruling: 17/09/2024 B.E.K. Mqarma, 3. It is alleged that, Edward. A. Gw im o, Mchael INI. Am ani, Jamila A. Mgalusi and 60 Others, the abovenamed Appellants, were employees of Tanzania Breweries Limited, the abovenamed Respondent. It is said that, the Appellants w ere stationed at Arusha and Dar es Salaam. In 2005, the Respondent terminated em ploym ent of the Appellants by way of retrenchment. Employees w ho were retrenched were aggrieved with the said termination. It is undisputed by the parties that, employees who were stationed in Arusha filed Trade Dispute No. 1 o f 2006 before the Industrial Court of Tanzania, the parties being Andrew Champhene and 121 Others v. Tanzania Breweries Limited. It is further undisputed that, employees who were stationed in Dar es Salaam filed Trade Dispute No. 11 o f 2006 before the Industrial Court of Tanzania, the parties being Isack Kisanga and 113 Others v. Tanzania Breweries Limited. At the time of hearing, the Industrial Court of Tanzania v/ V’' •.' consolidated the aforementioned trade disputes, After conclusion of hearing, the Industrial Court of Tanzania delivered the^judgem ent and decree that aggrieved the Appellants. With a^view of challenging the judgem ent and decree of the Industrial Court of Tanzania, the Appellants filed Reference No. 60A o f2008 before the Industrial Court of Tanzania, but the said reference was, dismissed for w ant of merit. Still aggrieved, though after a|very long process, the Appellants filed this appeal before the Labour Court to challenge the judgem ent and decree of the Industrial Court, of Tanzania, In the mem orandum of appeal, the "vt ■’ ^ A p p e lla n js ^ is e c k l total of eight grounds (8 ) which we feel unnecessary to reproduce in this ruling. W hen the appeal was called on for hearing, before giving the parties the floor to argue the grounds of appeal raised by the Appellants, we probed learned counsel to address the Court on competence of the appeal after noting that; (i) there was uncertainty on names of the Appellants as names of the Appellants were not annexed to the appeal hence difficult to ascertain whether the Appellants w ere party to the abovementioned Consolidated Trade Inquiry that was heard and determined by the Industrial Court of Tanzania and (ii) no copy of proceedings annexed to the mem orandum of appeal. Responding to the issues relating to the names of the Appellants raised by the Court, Mr. Barnaba Luguwa, learned .counsel for the *v■ Appellants submitted that the procedure of filing the^aforementioned Trade Disputes was in compliance with Section, .27 o f the Industrial Courts Act o f Tanzania, Cap 60 Revised 'Edition 2002. He submitted further that the said provision allowed th e \ a b o u r Commissioner to file Labour disputes on behalf of the Parties. He w ent on to submit that pleadings of the aforementioned Consolidated Trade Inquiry were initiated to the Industrial? Court of "Tanzania through a letter of the 'a$ . ' 'V? Labour Commissioner with reference No. KZ/U 10/MG/1156/8 dated 14th December-2005eJHe added that; the list of names of the employees who were aggrieved with retrenchment was submitted by the Labour Commissioner to the Industrial Court through the above cited letter. It was further submitted by Mr. Luguwa that; after the said letter was forwarded before the Industrial Court of Tanzania, the said Court issued a form that was signed by the parties. Counsel for the Appellants strongly submitted that the list of the names of the employees who were aggrieved with termination is part of the records of the Industrial Court. W hen probed by the Court as to w ho are the Appellants in this appeal, Mr. Luguwa responded that there are 63 Appellants only w ho were aggrieved with the decision of the Industrial Court of Tanzania. He was, therefore, of the prayer, if there is a necessity, the Appellants be allowed to amend the m em orandum of appeal by annexing theirkiam es. . v ■y Upon being further probed by the Court, Mr. Luguw a submitted that, to be open, the records are confusing, h e further submitted that, Trade Inquiry No. 1 of 2006 that was filed in Arusha had only nine (9 ) employees who signed the said ^isputef- But it is written Andrew Chamfwene and 121 Others. He also submitted that, Trade Inquiry No. 11 of 2006 that was f ile d % Dar es Salaam involved Isack Kisanga and 113 Others, but th e 'lis t has 114 people instead of 113 while it was 1 ;; '■ '> supposed to be. I^ack Kisanga and 112 Others. He further submitted that t h e r ^ ^ e s p | 6 ) names of person in the present appeal who are not in the original records. On absence of the copy of proceedings annexed to the m emorandum of appeal, Mr. Luguwa submitted that there is no specific rules providing w hat should be annexed if a person is aggrieved with the decision of the Industrial Court of Tanzania. He strongly submitted that our laws do not state as to what should be annexed to the mem orandum of appeal. He added that, if the copy of proceedings is needed, the Appellants will seek leave of the Court and apply for amending the m em orandum of appeal and attach it. On his turn, as regards to the first issue on list of names of Appellants, Mr. Rahim M bwam bo, learned counsel for the Respondent admitted the list was not attached. He then subrijitted that, the Appellants are challenging the decision delivered on 12th May 2008 in Reference No. 60A o f 2008 originating from consolidated Trade Inquiry No. 1 o f 2006 and 11 o f 2006 filed at Arusha and Dar es Salaam respectively wherein applicants were.234. He strongly submitted that there is no evidence proving that the 63 Appellants in this appeal were part to Reference No. 60A o f 2008. Tha t, the Appellants w ere supposed to prove to the Court that they were vA parties to Reference No. 60A o f 2008. He added that; by reading Reference^No. &0A o f 2008, it is not known w hether the herein Appellants were parties to the said reference as there is no proceedings or any docum ent which shows that the Appellants were parties to Reference No. 60A o f 2003. On the prayer to amend the m em orandum of appeal, Mr. Mbwambo submitted that since it is difficult for the Appellants to establish that they w ere parties to the Reference No. 60A o f 2008, even if the Court allows them to amend the m em orandum of appeal by bringing the list of 63 names, still, that cannot prove that they were parties to Reference No. 60A of 2008. He submitted further that; the Court is not an Angel of the door to sense that the Appellants were parties to Reference No. 60A of 2008 rather it is bound by the adversarial system. Hence, it is the Appellants w ho are supposed to *v . prove on w hat they allege because the Court stands as a referee. He concluded by stating that a nullity cannot -be\ t . . amended ( *r' and that Appellants were supposed to come to Court with clean hands. In rejoinder, Mr. Luguwa, submitted that those w ho were in the consolidated dispute are the same w h o were in Reference No. 60A of 2008 and that issue can be cleared by the original records. He added that; it is the duty o f the 'Court to issue calling of original records and ' k ." that the record of ^Reference No. 60A of2008m\\ speak for itself. ''S h j ■ Aftpr,Rearing submissions on behalf of the parties, we called the original records of the consolidated Trade Inquiry No. 1 o f 2006 and Trade Inguiry No. 11 o f 2006 and Reference No. 60A o f 2008 to satisfy ourselves as to w ho were the parties with a view of disposing the issue relating to the names of the Appellants in this appeal. It was correctly submitted by Mr. Luguwa that Trade Inquiry No. 1 o f2006 was filed before the Industrial Court of Tanzania by the Labour Commissioner. Having perused the original record, w e found that, on 14th Decem ber 2005, R.A. Teem ba, the Labour Commissioner, signed a letter with reference No. KZ/U.10/MG/156/8 forwarding a Trade Dispute between Andrew Champhene and 9 Othersi v. Tanzania Breweries Lim ited to the Chairman of the Industrial Court of Tanzania. T h e said letter shows the nature of tffe^jispute and the reliefs H iy claimed thereof was received at the Industrial Court of Tanzania on 30th December 2005. T h e said letter reads in part: ' SHERIA YA MAHAKAMA YA KAZI, 1967 UCHUNGUZIWAMGOGORO 14^4 KIKAZI :V KATI YA ANDREW CHAMPHENE NA WENZAKE 9................ WAIAIAMIKAJI 'T "-t- ■* NA TANZANIA 'BREWERIES LTD...................................MLALAMIKIWA' "%Jtv; " ' W e : h a v e . poted that the above quoted letterauthored by the Labour Commissioner did notmention the names of those Nine (9 ) employees of the Respondent who w ere aggrieved with retrenchment. Th a t notwistanding, it is clear from the said letter that, the the Labour Commissioner forwarded to the Industrial Court of Tanzania a Trade Inquiry involving Ten (1 0 ) employees against the Respondent. It is also revealed in the record that, on 16th January 2006, Hon. K.M .M . Sambo, the Deputy Chairman of the Industrial Court of Tanzania, issued a summons calling the complainants to file documents relating to the complaint (kum bukum bu za m adai). Th e said sum m ons reads as hereunder: 'MAHAKAMA YA KAZI UCHUNGUZI WA MGOGORO 1 WA 2 0 0 p Baina ya A N D R EW CHAMPHENE NA W ENZAKE 9 7 .......... WALAtAMIKAJI Na TANZANIA BREWERIES LTD................ ..;.^±,.M IALAM IKIW A KUMBUKUMBU YA MADAI NA.HOJA ZA MWAJIRI '"’Vi- . Mgogoro wa kikazi uliotajwa umeletwa nibeje ya Mahakama ya Kazi chini ya Sheria ya Mahakama ya Kazi na Wazin^a Kazi. ■/ Kabla haujapangwa kusikilizwa '*•mlalamikaji/walalamikaji unatakiwa / wanatakiwa kuieta kumbukumbu za madai (Memorandum) kufikia saa 9.30 a/asiri tarehe 2/2/2006 ria^ upeieke/wapeleke nakaia ya madai hayo kwa mlalamikiwa moja kw„a moja. \ A Itnetolewajiami leo tarehe 16/1/2006 S9d % ; KM.M SAMBO N^IBU MWENYEKITI JMAHAKAMA YA KAZI ../(Em phasis is ours). W e should take a rest here and com m ent that, there is no letter or evidence showing that the Labour Commissioner forwarded the dispute between Andrew Champhene and 97 Others v. Tanzania Breweries Ltd shown in the quoted sum mons, rather, the Labour Commissioner forwarded the dispute between Andrew Champhene and 9 Others v. Tanzania Breweries Ltd. It is unknown as to w here a total of Eighty-Eight (8 8 ) complainants came from. T h e least we can say is that, at the tim e of typing the said sum mons, num ber Seven (7 ) was added Infront of Nine (9 ) to make it Ninety-Seven (9 7 ). W e are of that considered view because, there is no any o th e r^e tte r that was signed by the Labour Commissioner showing that complaints were Ninety-Seven (9 7 ) and not Nine (9 ). T h a t is where.the confusion started. ■•'•'S. x:~;' In our further perusal of the original •record, w e found a letter dated 30th January 2006 by Barnaba Luguft/a; Advocate, with reference No. BL/ADV/VOL.27/02 to the Chairman of the Industrial Court of Tanzania titled 'YAH: KUMBUKUMBU YA MADAI-WADAI 9' giving background of the Trade Inquiry and the reliefs claimed thereof. To the if'' said letter, M r.% Luguwa attached various docum ents including "vv : • V;V. retrenchment packages paid to Nine (9 ) complainants. It is through the . -.O v said, documents, w e noted the names of the complainants as; (1 ) Andrew John Cham phene, (2 ) Wilson Mafit Natal, (3 ) Richard Kuwese Tarimo, (4 ) Abtwalib Ismail Msuya, (5 ) Peter Francis Sem pombe, (6 ) Paulo Kirita Tarim o, (7 ) Albinus Senga, (8 ) Alex Tito Fungo and (9 ) Ally Hamis Pelly. W e have pointed hereinabove that, the letter by the Labour Commissioner showed that the said Trade inquiry was involving Andrew Champhene and Nine (9 ) Others on one hand and Tanzania Breweries Ltd on the other. In other words, the said Trade Inquiry involved Ten (1 0 ) complaininats but the letter by Luguwa advocate indicated a total of nine (9 ) complainants only. T h e record shows further that, on 15th March 2006, Tanzania Breweries Ltd, filed "answ er to the m emorandum of clairp" that reads in part: 'IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OE TANZANIA ATARAUSHA\; ENQUIRY NO. 2of2006Xsic) ANDREW CHAMPHENE AND 97 O T H E R S ................. COMPLAINANTS VERSUS TANZANIA BREWERIES LTD......... ............................................RESPONDENT ANSWER TO THE MEMORANDUM OF CLAIM / . - N ■ ?. ■ In the said|answer^to the memorandum of claim, among other matters, the Respondent raised three preliminary objections namely, (i) the in q u ir e s bad in law and cannot be maintained in that the other ■v. I"--S/f ■ Complainants, with the exception of Andrew Cham phene, are unknown, *'•V?'"* (11) the inquiry is hopelessly time barred and (iii) the memorandum of Claim is incurably defective. On 3rd April 2006, Mr. Barnaba Luguwa, advocate filed a reply to the preliminary objection. T h e said reply reads in part: IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF TANZANIA ATARAUSHA ENQUIRY NO. 1 O F2006 ANDREW CHAMPHENE AND 97 OTHERS........................COMPLAINANTS VERSUS TANZANIA BREWERIES LTD.................................................... RESPONDENT REPLY TO THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS ■S'* 3. That, the Preliminary Objection is misconceived due to the fact that the names o f all 9B employees have been forwarded to this Court. In actual fact the employees who, are Contesting are only 9. These are: ; i. AN DREW JO H N CHAMPHENE ii. W ILSON M AFITA N A TA I ^ Hi. RICHARD KUW ESE TARIM O ^ iv.AB U TW ALIB ISM AIL MSUYA V. PETER SEMPOMBE FRA N CIS Vi. PAULO K IR ITA TARIMO vii. A LB IN U S SENGA viii. ALEXANDER T IT O FUNGO ix. A LLYH A M IS PELLY. See the attached document m arked collectively "P3" this document was forwarded to the Commissioner. See also letter ^.,V^ 'i' K2/u J o / M G / 156/8 (s ic ) dated 14th December 2005 marked P.4 / ' /•- (Emphasis is ours) We wish to point out albeit briefly that, we have carefully perused the original record and found only rulings that disposed preliminary objections relating to limitation of time and the m em orandum of claims raised by the Respondent. In short, there is no ruling relating to the identity or names of the complainants. It is our firm view that, the said preliminary objection was not disposed as there is no record showing that it was withdrawn. It is our further view that, had that preliminary objection disposed of, or else shown to have been withdrawn after Mr. Luguwa's reply /J'' v » admitting that there w ere only Nine (9 ) Complainants, the problem we have encountered in this matter would have been cleared from the start of hearing consolidated Trade In q u iry No. 1 o f 2006 and No. 11 o f2006. Th a t aside, am ongst the docum ents marked as P3 in the reply to the preliminary objection quoted hereinabove, is (i) a letter dated 8th January 2005 signed by^N ine (9 ) complainants directed to Barnaba Luguwa, advocate titled "YAH: KUPUNGUZWA IDADI YA V • •■ ’ ' WALALAMIKAJIvWA KESI NO MG. 1156 and (ii) a letter signed by Barnaba4LugUw 3 Jv ith reference No. MG/1156/3 dated 14th March 2005 .•f 'r„- to Kamisha Mkuu, W izara ya Kazi, Maendeleo ya Vijana na Michezo, P.O. Box 9014 Dar es Salaam. In the letter dated 8th January 2005 titled "YAH: KUPUNGUZWA IDADI YA WALALAMIKAJI WA KESI NO MG.1156" signed by the complainants it was made clear that, there were only Nine (9 ) complainants w ho were aggrieved with termination intended to proceed with the dispute. T h e said letter read in part: ...Hivyo Kikao kilifanyika tarehe 6/1/2005 na walalamikaji walioamua kuendefea na K E S I YA M A D A I iliyofunguliwa upya kwa Kamishna Kazi DSM (sic) kuwa TISA TU kama majina yaliyoorodheshwa ha pa chini: JINA SAHIHI 1. ANDREW JOHN CHAMPHENE ...signed 2. WILSON MAFUA NATAI...... *MAREHEMU-20-02-2005 not signed* 3. RICHARD KUWESE TARIMO.................... signed 4. ABUTWALIB ISMAIL MSUYA....................signed ,; \ 5. PETER SEMPOMBE FRANCIS.......................signed \ . 6. PAULO KIRITA TARIMO.................................signed, ^ Z ALBINUS SENGA.................................................. signed 8. ALEXANDER TITO FUNGO....................... signed 9. ALLYHAMIS PELLY...................................... i;sighed s Hao ndio walalam ikaji wa Kesi ya Madai No. M G 1156 iliyopo kwa Kamishna wa / r a z / z ? 5 M ./ ( E m p h a s is is o u rs ). It is surprising that, in the letter dated 8th January 2005 quoted shortly hereinabove, a star'was put in front of the nam e of Wilson Mafita Natai followed by, the words "M arehem u-20-02-2005. W e have pointed out hereinabove^tfiat/the dispute was forwarded to the Industrial Court ' 1' i?* of Tanzania by*' the Labour Commissioner on 14th December 2005, through a;letter with reference No. KZ/U.10/MG/156/8. It is our findings that, at the time of forwarding the dispute to the Industrial Court of Tanzania by the Labour Commissioner, the said Wilson Mafita Natai had died, yet it was indicated that Wilson Mafita Natai was amongst the employees w ho filed the dispute. Th a t itself, though not a subject of our discussion would invalidate the complaint. Again, the above mentioned letter authored by Barnaba Luguwa on 14th March 2005 was titled: ' SHERIA YA MAHAKAMA YA K A Z I1976 MGOGORO WA KIKAZI BAINA YA ANDREW JOHN CHAMPHENE NA WENZAKE 97.............. WALALAMIKAJI NA TANZANIA BREWERIES LTD...................................................... MLALAMIKIWA :'P YAH: MAELEZO YA W ALALAM IKAJI" 1 v- In the said letter, Mr. Barnaba Luguwa stated "... N i m atum aini yangu ofisi yako itawatendea haki walalamikaji 'vV.. wa kesi h ii bila ya ucheleweshajf wowote, pia ofisi yako itambue kwamba kuanzia leo tarehe 14/03/2005 idadi ya waliobakia x:\ kwenye kesi h ii n i walalamikaji; TISA TU. KIAMBATANISHO E/ (Emphasis is ours). “ Wonders are m any and in-deed, w e have wondered, as to how the number of complainants in Trade Inquiry No. 1 of 2006 that was filed before the Industgal Court of Tanzania at Arusha continued to increase from Ten (10).,to Ninety-Eight (9 8 ). But, that was not the end because, sum m on^ issued by the Court on 23rd October 2007 shows that there were One Hundred Tw enty-Tw o (1 2 2 ) complainants. From that date, all documents including Court Rulings cited the parties as Andrew Champhene and 121 Others v. Tanzania Breweries Ltd. There is no document in the record showing how the num ber arose from Ten Complainants. W e should point out that, annexture E to the said letter Is a piece of paper showing the names of the abovementioned Complainants, their address in Arusha, their title and monthly salary. W e should further point out that, annexture P.4 to the said letter is a letter that was signed on 14th December 2005 by R. A. T e ^ ^ b a , the ^Labour Commissioner forwarding the dispute to the Industrial Q ourt-of Tanzania showing that, the dispute relates to Ten(lQ )% Com plain ants only as discussed hereinabove. From the foregoing, it is our considered" opinion that, the dispute that was filed as Trade Inquiry,No, 1 of 2006 in the Industrial Court of Tanzania at Arusha involved Ten (1 0 ) Complainants, namely Andrew John Champhene a n d 9 Others as reflected In the letter by the . . ' f' bi, 'V . Labour Commissioner that forwarded the dispute to the Industrial Court of Tanzania afterjzonsidering the letter authored by Barnaba Luguwa. - fi W e novkturn to the Trade Inquiry No. 11 of 2006 that was instituted in the Industrial Court of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam. W e painstakingly, perused the records to ascertain the names of the complainants in this Trade Inquiry and found that, there is neither a letter by the Labour Commissioner forwarding the dispute between Isack Kisanga and 113 Others v. Tanzania Breweries Limited to the Court, nor Memorandum of claims and answer to the m em orandum of claims. Th e only documents available is a letter dated 4th May 1999 signed by Isack Kisanga directed to Executive Director (Utum ishi) T B L titled "Y A H . MALALAMIKO D H ID I Y A MALIPO NA M AFAO KW A W AFANYAKAZI 212 7 U LIO P U N G U Z W A TA R E H E 30/04/1999" and a letter with reference No. BL/ADV/VOL47/06 dated 6th April 2006 signed by Barnaba Luguwa, advocate, directed to the Honourable Chairman of the Industrial Court of Tanzania applying for Consolidation of Trade Inquiry No. 1 o f 2006 between Andrew Champhene and Eight, Others v. Tanzania Breweries Ltd and Trade Inquiry No, 11 o f 2006 between Isack Kisanga and Others v, Tanzania Breweries Ltd. Th e aforementioned letter seeking consolidation of the aforementioned two Trade Inquries was titled: # • •-1 'Y/\H: KUSiiq^IZWA PAMOJA(CONSOUDATION) MAOMBI YA MGOGORO N A M B A 1 Y A 2 0 0 6 K A T I YA AN D R EW CHAMPHENE NA WENZAKE W ANANE Dkffbl YA TANZANIA BREWERIES LTD NA MAOMBI YA -•MGOGORO/NO. 11 YA 2006 KATI YA ISACK KISANGA NA WENZAKE DHIDI YA TANZANIA b r e w e r ie s Z.7Z>/(Emphasis is ours). Th e aforementioned letter seeking application for consolidation was received by the Industrial Court of Tanzania on 10th April 2006. W e have pointed out a while that, the only letter showing that Isack Kisanga and 212 Others were complaining against the Respondent is a letter signed by Isack Kisanga on 4th May 1999 directed to Executive Director (U tum ishi) T B L . W e should make it clear that, the said letter did not forward the dispute to the Industrial Court of Tanzania. W e are of that firm view because, in terms of section 6(2) and 8(a) , (b), (c) and 10 o f the Industrial Court o f Tanzania, A ct No- 2 o f 1993, it was the Labour Commissioner or any labour officer, aujhorized by the 'v labour Commissioner w ho was mandated to forward .^disputes to the Industrial Court of Tanzania. In absence of the letter or a certificate by the Labour Commissioner forwarding the dispute between Isack > Kisanga and 212 Others v. Tanzania Breweries, we cannot conclude that the said Trade Inquiiy was properly filed before the Industrial Court of Tanzanig. With that in mind, we are of the view that, an appeal arising from Reference No. 60A of 2008 originating from rff' ■ ,!•' proceedings of the Consolidated Trade Inquiry No, 1 o f 2006 and No. 11 £ ^ 0 O < L c a n n o t be competently before this Court. It is o t e considered opinion that, submissions by Mr. Luguwa, that pleadings of the aforementioned Consolidated Trade Inquiries were initiated through a letter with reference No. KZ/U10/MG/1156/8 dated 14th December 2005 signed by the Labour Commissioner cannot be valid. W e are of that settled opinion as we have pointed hereinabove that, in the said letter, the Labour Commissioner indicated that the complainants were Andrew Cham phene and Nine (9 ) Others only. Th e re is no evidence whatsoever in the records showing that the Labour Commissioner forwarded to the Industrial Court of Tanzania the dispute between Isack Kisanga and 212 Others against the Respondent. More so, submissions by counsel Luguwa that, upon receipt of the letter from the Labour Commissioner, the In d u stria l^C ^irt ofvTanzania issued a form that was signed by the parties, is not supported by the record of the said Court. In the record of the said Consolidated Trade Inquiry No. 1 o f2006 and 11 o f2006 th e re ;is no record that was signed by the parties showing the names of the complainants. W e also perused the record of the Court in relation to Reference No. 60A o f2008 and found that, applicants in the said Reference application did not disclose their names, save for Isack Kisanga and Andrew Champhene. W e are pf that considered opinion because, documents in the said. Reference shows that, parties were Isack Kisanga and % ,4',v Andrew Champhene and 234 Others v. Tanzania breweries Ltd. Apart from the names of Andrew Cham phene and Isack Kisanga, there are no other names of the applicants who filed the said Reference No. 60A o f2008 before the Industrial Court of Tanzania, which is the subject of this appeal. Mr. Luguwa after had a glimpse of the above facts when he submitted after being probed by the Court that, names of the Appellants in this appeal are confusing and his findings that Six Appellants in this appeal w ere not part to the original Consolidated Trade Inquiry. In our view, that tells all as to w hy we raised the issue relating to the names of the Appellants. T h e admission by Mr. Luguwa that S ix ;(| ) Appellants in v this appeal w ere not party to the original Consolidated Trade Inquiry either No. 1 o f2006 and No. 11 o f2006 leads, us to conclude that, there “'•'ofr' is uncertainty on the names of the Appellants; It is therefore our view that, hearing this appeal with this much uncertainty, will be giving a / room to persons w ho were not parties to the Consolidated Trade Inquiry No. 1 o f2006 and No. 11 o f2006, hence, not part of Reference No. 60A of 2008 from which this appeal emanates, to form part of what they were not originally part of. "v,' " Apart fro m ith e foregoing, in the Electronic Case Management System (e C M S ), Appellants indicated that, the appeal is by Edward. A. Gwimo against the Respondent. At the time of filing this appeal, it was not indicated that the appeal is by Edward. A. Gw im o and Others against the Respondent. It is only in the memorandum of appeal where it was indicated that the appeal was filed by Edward A. Gw im o and Others. This leads to our considered view that; the appeal was improperly filed. Assuming that it was properly filed and that, the error is curable, the most im portant issue is; whether the Appellants w ere parties to Reference No. 60A o f 2008 that was filed before the Industrial Court of Tanzania, the subject of this appeal, as we have pointed out hereinabove. O u r venture in the matter did. Not end there. We also read the judgem ent of the Industrial Court of Tanzania in Reference No. 60A o f 2008 dated 18th Septem ber 2009 and find that, tfyg parties are Andrew Champhene and Isack Kasanga and Others v. Tanzania Breweries Limited. Th e re is no proof that; the Appellants were part to the said proceedings. W ithout proof that the Appellants were part to the Consolidated Trade Inquir^No. 1 o f2006 and 11 o f 2006 and Reference No. 60A o f 2008, i t cannot be said that they have locus to file this appeal. W e are of^ha|:firm view because the names of the parties in the ju d g e m e n t ^ the; Industrial Court of Tanzania in Reference No. 60A o f 2008 are different from the names of the Appellants in this appeal. Assuming that Appellants were party to the said Industrial Court o f Tanzania Reference No. 60A o f 2008, of which evidence is wanting, in the appeal at hand, the Appellants were supposed to maintain the names of the parties as they appear in the judgem ent of Industrial Court of Tanzania in Reference No. 60A o f 2008. Change of names were supposed to be done by leave of the Court as it was held by the Court of Appeal in the case of Board o f Trustees o f the Public Social Security Fund (PSSSF) vs William Mwakitalu & Others (Civil Application No. 713/01 of 2022) [2 0 2 4 ] T Z C A 361 (15 May 2024) and Inter Consult Lim ited vs Nora Kassanaa & Another (Civil Appeal No 79 of 2015) [2 0 1 9 ] T Z C A 633 (8 February 2019),. In. Inter Consults case(supra), the Court of Appeal held inter-alia that: 7/7 this case a party to the suit has been changed/without an order of the I1'?' trial Court...Be it as it may we agree with Mr. Vedasto that substitution of the appellant's name from International Engineering Consultancy Services Ltd to Inter Consult Ltd without any specific order of the trial Court was an irregularity which was fatal.. We, therefore, find the appeal is incompetent liable to be struck out/ Emphasisiadded i , l‘r In the appeal at hand, there is no proof that, leave was sought and granted by the Court, for the Appellants to change the names that was it used in the'•s. Industrial; Court of Tanzania Reference No. 60A of 2008 to « V * the names;used;*iri this appeal. Guided by the above quoted decision of 1 ' the C o u r t, of Appeal, we conclude that, this appeal is incompetent because, there is no proof that Appellants sought and were granted leave by this Court to change the names of the parties from the one appearing in the judgem ent of the Industrial Court of Tanzania in Reference No. GOA of2008X.o the names used in this appeal. In addition to the foregoing, the Appellants have indicated in the memorandum of appeal that, the appeal is by Edward. A. Gwimo, Michael N. Amani, Jamila Mgalusi and 60 Others against Tanzania Breweries Limited. T h e issue is, w ho are the 60 Others undisclosed? We are of the view that, this has left a room for any other person from any angle of the country or world, to come at any time in future and. ciaim that he/she is one of the 60 O ther undisclosed persons.1Th is Court cannot hear and determ ine this appeal with, uncertain names of the Appellants as that can be an invitation for other persons w ho were not parties to the Industrial Court o f Tanzania. Reference No. 60A o f2008, if the appeal is allowed, to claim that they were parties and fuel more cases and claims against the Respondent. We are not prepared to create such chaos. In fact, the Court of Appeal was confronted with a similar c%T' ’ ---K 1 situation in the case of Hsu Chin Tai & 36 Others v. The Republic, V Criminal Appeal No. 345 of 2009(unreported). In Hsu Chin Tai's case, vV* (supra), the notice of appeal read: TAK E N O TIC E that HSU C H IN T A I & 36 OTHERS appeals to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania...' In Hsu Chin Tai's case (supra), the Court of Appeal discussed the competence of the quoted Notice of Appeal and held as follows: A question we ask ourselves, is this a joint notice of appeal? With respect, we think not I t is only one appellant Hsu Chin who has been identified b y name. The rest are referred to as "OTHERS", b u t who are they? H o w do we know that the "36 others" were desirous o f appeaiing to this Court? With respect, thus is n o t a jo in t notice o f appeal. The names o f a ll Appellants should have been m entioned in the notice o f appear [Emphasis added] Consequently, the Court of Appeal found the Notice of Appeal incompetent and struck it out. Th is Court has taken a similar stance in the case of Ally forodha & 1673 Others vs The Permanent %■ Secretary M inistry o f Finance and Attorney General (Misc. Application No. 421 of 2022) [2022] TZ H C L D 1096 (12 December 2022) and Justus Mazenao & 41 Others vs tanzania Portland Cement Pic (Misc. Application No. 2 o f-2 0 2 2 ) [2022] T Z H C L D 53 (25 February 2022). ?• "c . For the foregoing,, we, jjereby nullify proceedings of the consolidated Trade Inquiry Nof l of 2006 and No. 11 of 2006 because there was violation of the provisions of section 6(2) and 8(a), (b), (c) and 10 of the Industrial [Court of Tanzania, Act No. 2 of 1993. W e further nullify t'*p\% >. ’• proceedipgs of Reference No. 60A of 2008 that emanates from proceedings of the said Consolidated Trade Inquiry No. 1 of 2006 and No. 11 of 2006, the subject of this appeal. W e have reached that conclusion for the reasons that, no appeal can stem on a nullity as it was held by the Court of Appeal in the case of Ism ail Rashid vs M ariam M s a ti(Gv\l Appeal No. 75 of 2 0 1 5 ) [2 0 1 6 ] T Z C A 7 8 6 (2 9 M arch 2 0 1 6 ). A fte r finding th a t all w h a t w e have discussed hereinabove has disposed th e appeal, w e will th e re fo re , not discuss o th e r issues th a t w e raised in this appeal. Dated a t D a r es salaam this 17th S e p te m b e r 2024 JUD GE M. P. O p iy o JU D G E I f B. E. K. Mganga JUDGE Ruling delivered a nd dated this 17th S e p te m b e r in C h a m b e rs in the presence of B arnaba L u g u w a , A d vo ca te for the A ppellants a nd in the absence o f th e R espondent. JUD GE M. I JUD GE