everwell cable engeneering co ltd vs nassoro s nassoro 3 others 2022 tzhcld 783 15 july 2022

everwell cable engeneering co ltd vs nassoro s nassoro 3 others 2022 tzhcld 783 15 july 2022

There was insufficient evidence to prove that the respondents were terminated from employment, as the only evidence (voice recording) was uncorroborated and its authenticity was not established. Therefore, the dispute was prematurely filed at the CMA and the award was set aside.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
everwell cable engeneering co ltd vs nassoro s nassoro 3 others 2022 tzhcld 783 15 july 2022
Parties
Applicant: Everwell Cable & Engineering Co. Ltd; Respondent: Nassoro S. Nassoro; Respondent: Samwel D. Getaro; Respondent: Elias D. Mwago; Respondent: Mussa J. Dibwe; Respondent: Paul I. Milanzi
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
15 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Labour Revision / Judgment on Application to Quash CMA Award
Outcome
Application allowed; CMA proceedings and award quashed and set aside.
Legal Topics
Unfair Termination, Admissibility of Evidence, Procedural Fairness, Representation in Labour Disputes
Source Language
english
Labour Law Unfair Termination Admissibility of Evidence Procedural Fairness Representation in Labour Disputes

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Everwell Cable & Engineering Co. Ltd

Applicant

Nassoro S. Nassoro

Respondent

Samwel D. Getaro

Respondent

Elias D. Mwago

Respondent

Mussa J. Dibwe

Respondent

Paul I. Milanzi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Revision / Judgment on Application to Quash CMA Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CMA erred in admitting and relying on certain evidence (exhibit P3 and affidavit of authentication)
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' termination was substantively and procedurally fair
  3. 3 Whether PW1 was properly authorized to represent other respondents

Ratio Decidendi

There was insufficient evidence to prove that the respondents were terminated from employment, as the only evidence (voice recording) was uncorroborated and its authenticity was not established. Therefore, the dispute was prematurely filed at the CMA and the award was set aside.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; CMA proceedings and award quashed and set aside.

Orders

  • CMA proceedings and subsequent award are quashed and set aside.