emmanuel mwaipopo vs director british council t 2002 tzhc 2070 27 june 2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF T«N2.iKIA at MBEYA MISC. CIVIL AlvE.iL NO. 29 OF 2001 (From the d e c is io n o f the D i s t r i c t Court o f Mbeya D i s t r i c t at Mbeya C i v i l Case No* 16 o f 2001) El,0.1A HUE L M'i7*ll I ’Ol ' O: 5 : ; : s : :A1VELLANT VERSUS DIRECTOR BRITISH COUNCIL (T) : : : : s : RESPONDSNT judgment MACICiNJA. J . The p l a i n t i f f was employed by the defendant on. p e r i o d ic a l , renewable co n tra ct o f employment with, e f f e c t from 1 s t Ju ly, 1997. The c o n tr a c t was f i n a l l y put to an end on 30th November, 2000. I t seems to me th a t the d eterm in a tion o f the c o n tr a c t o f employment d id n ot aggrieve the p l a i n t i f f ; he was offen d ed by the apparent d e n ia l o f adequate term in al b e n e f i t s . In order t o r e c o v e r those b e n e f i t s he' brought a s u it b e fo re the Court o f R esiden t M agistrate at Kbeya i n which he claim s quite a number o f r e l i e f s , p a r t ic u la r s of which are not iiiunediately r e lo ^ n t for purpose» of the present appeal. The defendant, through Mr. M bisc, learn ed c o u n s c l, r a is e d fo u r p relim in a ry o b je c t io n s , the combined e f f e c t o f which, i s the c o n te n tio n that the s u it i s u n su sta in a b le . In p a r t ic u la r , i t i t the defence case th at — (a ) the s u it has been w rongly p r e ffe r r e d a g a in st the defendant who i s m erely an employee o f the B r it is h C o u n cil \ (b) there i s no o rg a n iz a tio n known a s ’the B r it is h C ou n cil, Tanzania; (c ) th at the B r it is h C ouncil i s not a le g a l e n t it y capable o f bein g sued in i t s name; nor i s i t a non—governm ental o r g a n iz a tio n ; th at i t s op e ra tio n s are governed by a Memorandum o f Understanding between the Government o f the United K in g d o m o f Great B r ita in and Nothern Ir e la n d on the one p a r t and the Government o f the United R ep u blic o f Tanzania which was sig n ed at Dar~es-Salnam on 12 th September, 19755 and (d ) th at the t r i a l cou rt i s not s e iz e d o f _ to ' - - •- v ; jurisdictioi^ try the suit* .After hearing both learn ed cou n sel argue the above m atters the learn ed R esiden t M agistrate h e ld th a t-th e D ir e c t o r o f the B r it is h Counsel was wrongly im pleaded; th at i t was the duty o f wthe p l a i n t i f f to e s t a b lis h whether or not the B r it is h C ouncil has l e g a l c a p a c ity to be suedj th at the B r it is h C ou n cil i s not a non-governm ental o rg ~ n iza ti on$ andth a t •since -the . p l a i n t i f f was summarily d ism issed the t r i a l c o u r t ’ s ju r i s d i c t i o n was ou sted by ‘s e c t io n 28 o f the S e c u r ity o f .Employment ^ c t , 1964# The p l a i n t i f f was a g g riev ed by th at d e c is io n , hence t h is appeal in, which three grounds have been r a is e d ; that i s s a y j- 1 , that the learn ed t r i a l m agistrate e rre d - i n h o ld in g that, the respondent cou ld n ot be sued e it h e r d i r e c t l y or through i t s ■ D ir e c t o r under the p r o v is io n s o f Order XXIX o f the C iv il Trocedure Code 5 " 2« th at the learn ed t r i a l m agistrate m is d ir e c te d h im se lf in law and i n f a c t when he h old th at the respondent was a branch o f the Government o f the United R ep u b lic which cannot "be sued ex cep t under the Government P roceed in g s A ctj and .f<>. 3. th at the t r i a l courir e r re d to e n te r ta in arguments on the q u e stio n o f summary d is m is s a l which was n ot one o f the prelim in ary, m atters th a t were r a is e d ~y*i- i n t h e 'n o t ic e o f o b je c tio n # - That i n the a lt e r n a t iv e , the t r i a l cou rt n isc o n tru o d the p r o v is io n s o f s e c t io n 28 o f the S e cu rity o f Employment Act as i t does not apply to p e r io d ic a l c o n tr a c ts o f employment which cease to be op era tiv e with a f f l u x i o n o f time and where the ex-em ployee does not d isp u te term in a tion o f the c o n tr a c t and sues to r e co v e r term in al b e n e fit s in s t e a d , as i s the case h ere, ■ Mr. J u stin ia n I/lushokorwa, learn ed cou n sel, argued in favou r o f the appeal w hile I5r. Mika M bise, lea rn ed co u n se l, opposed i t on b e h a lf o f the respon d en t. Both learn ed cou n sel have argued the is s u e s with verve ^.nd w ith co n sid e ra b le in d u stry* In my o p in io n , however, the s i n g l e most im portant issu e i s whether or n o t , in view o f the 'memorandum o f u nderstanding, the B r it is h C ou n cil and i t s o f f i c e r s do not e n jo y d ip lo m a tic immunity. If they do then the p r o v is io n s o f the D ip lom a tic and Consular Im m unities and 2 r i v i l i g e s Act ( t h e . Alc t ) , No, 5 o f 1986 w i l l apply. Theae p r o v is io n s w i l l apply i f the B r it is h Gi>uh o i l op era tes as an organ o f the B r it is h High Commission in Tanzania. In t h is regard the Memorandum o f Understanding between the Government o f the United Kingdom and o f the United R ep u blic becomes a very c r u c i a l document# Par a-;^raph 1 o f the sa id p rovid e s th u s : " ^ ^ S h e Government the U nited Kingdom *7**•’ ^^^i'CdQte w ith the consent o f the Government o f SftnzSoiarthe B r it is h C ounoil as an agency promote fr ie n d ly c o -o p e r a t io n in e d u c a tio n a l, s c i e n t i f i c r - te c h n ic a l and c u lt u r a l m atters between t h e ir two c o u n t r ie s " . - V Thus the B r it is h C ou n cil i s in my view , the agency o f the Government o f the United Kingdom charged with the r o le o f prom oting f r ie n d ly c o -o p e r a t io n in ed u ca tio n , s c i e n t i f i c , te c h n ic a l and c u ltu r a l n a tt e r s between our two c o u n tr ie s . I t e x ecu tes p r o je c t s i n those f i e l d s f o r and on b e h a lf o f the Govcrnment£«^~-t1ft^ Kingdom. In th at con text i t o‘Ye as one w ith the B r it is h High Commission i n Tanzania, I t s o f f i c e r s th e re fo re f a l l under the d e f in i t io n o f the e x p re ssio n "d ip lo m a tic agent" which i s d e fin e d under s e c t io n 3 o f the Act to mean " ... a member o f the d ip lom a tic s t a f f o f the m is s io n '1. A r t ic le 1 (d ) o f .the Vienna Convention on D iplom atic R e la tio n s which- form s the F ir s t Schedule to the Act s t ip u la t e s th at ‘the "members o f the d ip lom a tic s t a f f " are the members o f the s t a f f o f the m ission having d ip lo m a tic rank; This d e f i n i t i o n matches the words "d ip lo m a tic em ployee" in s e c t io n 3 o f the Act# They could be s e r v ic e s t a f f , a d m in istra tiv e s t a f f or t e c h n ic a l s t a f f o f the m iss io n . O ffic e r s o f the m ission who q u a lify as s t a f f o f the m ission have immunity co n fe r re d on them by s e c t io n 6 o f the ^ c t , which p r o v id e s th u s:~ "6^ ^ny member } f the d ip lo m a tic s t a f f o f a m ission perform ing d u tie s s u b s t a n t ia lly correspon din g t o those perform ed by any member o f the d ip lo m a tic s t a f f o f a m ission o f a fo r e ig n s c v o r o in power s h a ll be e n t i t l e d t o the lik e im m unities as are accord ed to members o f the d ip lom a tic s t a f f o f such a m is s io n .1’ I t i s the duty o f the a p p ella n t to show th at the D ir e c t o r o f the B r it is h C ouncil does not f a l l under the va riou s d e s c r ip t io n s o f d ip lo m a tic s t a f f and th a t, th e r e fo r e , he i s not covcrod by s e c t io n 6 o f the ;4c t . : Mr. Mushokorwa, learn ed co u n sel, argues th at even though the B r it is h C ou n cil may not be a lim it e d l i a b i l i t y company, i t i s n on e th e less h is view th at the B r it is h C ouncil as an o r g e n iz a tio n or a s s o c ia t io n o f p eop le f o r the purpose o f ca rry in g on b u sin ess i n Tanzania may s t i l l be sued i n terms o f ru le 10 o f Order XXIX o f the C iv il Procedure Code0 The immediate q u estion i s whether the B r it is h C ouncil i s bu sin ess firm , a s s o c ia t io n or o rg a n iz a tio n which may be sued i n i t s bu sin ess name under ru le 10 o f Order XXIX. I w i l l say th at Mr0 Mushokorwa7s argument i s u ntenable, 'nd the reason i s b r i e f . Order XXIX makes p r o v is io n f o r commercial e n te r p r is e s doing b u sin ess f o r g a in as firm s or p a r tn e rs h ip s . It has nothing to do w ith governm ent-business or community s e r v ic e s such as those th at are execu ted by the B r it is h C o u n cil. Order XXIX i s d e f i n i t e l y in n p lic a b le in a s it u a t io n such as the one under c o n s id e r a tio n . Because the D ir e c t o r o f the B r it is h C ouncil e n jo y s d isp lo m a tic immunity he or the B r it is h C ouncil may be ’.sued on ly i f , under s e c t io n 22 (1) (a ) o f the ^ ct, the head o f m ission w ives any immunity co n fe rre d on them under the p r o v is io n s o f the ilc t. Since no such waver has been made, the p roceed in g s b e fo re the t r i a l co u rt are untenable a t law* I t f o llo w s , th e r e fo r e , th a t the s u it i s u n su sta in a b le . I would thus roach the same c o n c lu sio n as th at o f the t r i a l cou rt but on e n t i r e l y d if f e r e n t grounds. x iccord in gly the appeal would f a i l * The appeal i s d ism issed w ith c o s ts « De liv e re d c sgds J.K, MACICANJ/i JUDGE 2 7 /6 /2 0 0 2 . D ate: 27/6/2002 Cor can: 3 .^ . L i l i a , DR For ap p ella n t* Mushok;orwa /idvocate f o r p resen t For respon dent; Kfoiso Advocate f o r - x>resent C/C: Kossam ; • l i Or d e r ; Judgment d e liv e r e d today i n the presence o f learn ed | Mushokorwa Advocate f o r the /ip p e lla n t and learn ed Mbise Advocate f o r the Respondent. sgd : S.;*. LILLA DISTRICT REGISTRAR 27/ 6/2002 C e rtifie d ."tru e co-jy o f the o r ig in a l* o> ^ " * \ - v \ 9\ DISTRtCT REGISTRAR r ^ "• j HBEYii *?: s