20130809 TZHC Dar es Salaam

! i THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA LABOUR DIVISION ' AT DAR ES Sf+LAAM .,,,,., I ,-- MISC.~PP~.~ 71 OF 2013 I .......,..,.. !_ . • ..... ., it. ■ . -~.- ----BETWEErt ; EPHRAIM JO RAM ................ ... 1 ................... I APPLICANT VS j I DIRECTOR TANGA CEMENT COMPANY LTD ......... RESPONDENT I ! i I RULING 9/7/2013 & 9/8/2013 j S.A.N. WAMBURA,· J. I On 24/04/2013 the applicant filed a notice to review the decision of ·I the Labour Division of ,the High Court issued at Dar es Salaam on 12/04/2013. The notice of review was filed under Rule 27 of the Labour ,..1 Court Institutions Act. GN.106. The application· was supported by a memorandum of review. At t~e. hearing of ~h~. application the applicant appeared in person I and Mr. Sinare Advocate entered appearance for the respondent. j I The Applicant.submitted that, the employer had agreed to pay him t 1 but the law is silent on what is to be do ne in such matters which were not I raised in the new Labour laws. He submitted that he had gone to CMA and ! I ., ' ,.. I f the Labour Commissioner, so he did not know what should be done at this stage. He alledged t~at what he., yta~. praying for now ~as not what he · ! I .. ~ . tlf.O ~,. · prayed for in 2004. ·- Jhat in the,·r't.Jling- cif,, 2004 the court granted what he -..- was claim_ing. He is now claiming salaries from July1986 up to March 2005, · and the same was filed in 1986. That the new contract began in 1985 and· the court was informed that there were other claims which he was claiming. Thus there were two different claims. ' I In his reply, Mr. Sinare submitted that he believes the applicant had not adduced valid reasons to make this court to review its decision. That the issue before Kisutu Resident Magistrate's Court was in respect of this employment which he has again brought before this court. He thus prayed for this applicatiorl tb be dismissed because apart· from the issue of res judicata there was also the issue of observing the procedures at ·1 ,.. CMA. ' . ' In his rejoinder, the applicant submitted that he had two different contracts of employment'. 1 The second contract of -employment was not resolved while the first contract had already been resolved. There was no dispute that he was an employee so he was claiming benefits from his second contract. 2 . ! I ; ! i • I In thi$ matter there are two importbnt issues which have to be determined by this court. / . The first issue i~:hethe!rtOO-.dril'!J1lte las heard on merit at CMA. I';••~•• _ _,:,•\ 1' ..--. '!•~• •4-:~I As I stated in my previous decision of 13/ /2013 that the matter was not heard on merit at CMA for want of prope~ filing procedures. Therefore 1 I this matter can not be reviewed here as ;the same ought to be properly filed at CMA as CMA had no ~urisdiction to [entertain the matter because it • I had to be reffered to it by the Labour Commissioner. As for the second issue on whether ,there was a second contract of employment or not, this court can not en~ertain it as the same has to be .. . i . heard at CMA first as provided for unde~ section 42 (2) of Written laws • • I (Miscellaneous . Amendments) . No. 2 of 2010. I I ..., The applicant is aggrieved as I state~ the matter" appears J:o me to be . I' res judiczata. I stand to be corrected by ad~ucing evidence that it is not. I II · Howe~er, I also not~di that it was ifnproperly filed at CMA. Thus the ' . applicant should have asked the Laboud Commissioner to assist him in filing his claim at CMA - where the saJe would be heard and decided ' f . upon. I. 3 I\ I I. ! i' But again if the respondents are willing to pay him as it· has been submitted I-believe they could also go alo_ng and settle the -matter out of •, court as there is nothin_.g. wrong in so doing. : s.~ra 9/8/2,01) i I; I ! I. ' . I i i i 4