emmanuel qawoda vs director general nssf 2023 tzhcld 1200 14 february 2023
- Citation
- emmanuel qawoda vs director general nssf 2023 tzhcld 1200 14 february 2023
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TANZLII
- Decision
- 14 February 2023
- Posture
- Maombi Ya Anuai / Uamuzi Wa Maombi Ya Kukazia Hukumu
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TANZLII
- Decision
- 14 February 2023
- Posture
- Maombi Ya Anuai / Uamuzi Wa Maombi Ya Kukazia Hukumu
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Deputy Registrar erred in striking out Execution No. 563/2020 for lack of jurisdiction because there was a valid court order transferring the file from Songea to Dar es Salaam. The matter was not res judicata, and the execution application was properly before the court. The application is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the execution proceedings are to continue.
Court disposition
Application allowed
Orders
- Order of Deputy Registrar dated 15/07/2022 striking out Execution No. 563/2020 is set aside.
- Execution No. 563/2020 is restored to the court register and to proceed from where it ended.
02
Material facts
Parties
Emmanuel Qawoda
Mleta Maombi Counsel: Hemedi KimwagaDirector General NSSF
Mjibu Maombi Counsel: Ismail Ismail03
Procedural history
Posture
Maombi Ya Anuai / Uamuzi Wa Maombi Ya Kukazia Hukumu
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the High Court Labour Division Dar es Salaam has jurisdiction to entertain execution proceedings for an award made outside its region
- 02
Whether the matter is res judicata
- 03
Whether the court can grant execution orders where the application is alleged to be defective
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that the Deputy Registrar erred in striking out Execution No. 563/2020 because there was a prior order transferring the file from Songea to Dar es Salaam, and the award had not been challenged or satisfied. The applicant relied on documentary evidence of the transfer and cited constitutional rights to a fair hearing.
- Respondent
- The respondent argued that the High Court Labour Division Dar es Salaam lacked jurisdiction since the dispute arose and was determined in Songea, that the matter was res judicata, and that the execution application was defective.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Court's reasoning
Execution proceedings are not new cases but procedures to enforce court orders; res judicata does not apply unless the decree has been satisfied.
- 02
Court's reasoning
Once a file is transferred by court order, the transferee court has jurisdiction to proceed.
- 03
Article 13(6)(a) of the Constitution of Tanzania
Awards not challenged must be enforced; technical objections should not defeat substantive justice.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Deputy Registrar erred in striking out Execution No. 563/2020 for lack of jurisdiction because there was a valid court order transferring the file from Songea to Dar es Salaam. The matter was not res judicata, and the execution application was properly before the court. The application is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the execution proceedings are to continue.
Obiter and limits
- Technicalities should not be used to defeat substantive rights of decree holders.
- State Attorneys must carefully read and understand court records before making submissions.
Court disposition
Application allowed
- Order of Deputy Registrar dated 15/07/2022 striking out Execution No. 563/2020 is set aside.
- Execution No. 563/2020 is restored to the court register and to proceed from where it ended.
Source and reliance status
TANZLII · 14 February 2023
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
TANZLII
Judgment· 14 February 2023
KATIKA MAHAKAMA KUU YA JAMHURI YA MUUNGANO WA TANZANIA
DIVISHENI YA KAZI
DAR ES SALAAM MAOMBI YA ANUAI NA. 445 YA MWAKA 2022 (yatokanayo na Uamuzi wa maombi ya Kukazia Hukumu Na. 563 ya 2020 uliotolewa tarehe 15/7/2022 na Naibu Msajili EJ. Nyembele)
BAINA YA EMMANUEL QAWODA......................................................... MLETA MAOMBI
DHIDI YA DIRECTOR GENERAL NSSF.................................................. MJIBU MAOMBI
UAMUZI S.M, MAGHIMBI, J: Katika maombi haya, Mleta Maombi hakuridhika na uamuzi uliotolewa na Mhe Naibu Msajili katika Shauri la Ukazaji Hukumu Namba 04/2010 iliyotolewa tarehe 15/07/2022 ambayo ililifuta shauri hilo. Hivyo basi Mleta Maombi anaiomba Mahakama hii kutoa nafuu zifuatazo: 1. Kwamba Mahakama hii tukufu iliitishe jalada la kazia Hukumu Na. 563/2010 lililotolewa uamuzi tarehe 15/07/2022 na kasha kufuta amri zote zilizofuta shauri hilo na kuamuru kulifufua upya shauri hilo kwani Naibu Msajili E. Nyembele alikosea kulifuta shauri hilo sababu i kulikuwa na amri ya kuitisha jalada la kazia Hukumu Na. 04/2010 iliyotokana na Tuzoiliyotolewa Songea.
2. Kwamba Mahakama Kuu iweze kusikiliza na kutoa uamuzi wowote ambao inaona unafaa.
3. Nafuu yoyote ambayo Mahakama itaona inafaa. Maombi haya yaliambatana na kiapo cha mleta maombi kilichoapwa tarehe 04 mwezi 11 mwaka 2022. Kwa upande wao wajibu maombi walipinga maombi haya huku wakiiomba Mahakama iyafutilie mbali. Maombi haya yalisikilizwa kwa njia ya maandishi. Upande wa mleta maombi uliwakilishwa na Bwana Hemedi Kimwaga, Mwakilishi Binafsi wakati upande wa Wajibu Maombi uliwakilishwa na Bwana Ismail Ismail, Wakili wa Serikali. Kwa kuanzia, nimeona hoja iliyoibuliwa na Mjibu maombi wakati akiwasilisha majibu yake. Hoja hizo ni:- 1. Kwamba, je Mahakama Kuu Divisheni ya Kazi iliyopo Kanda ya Dar es Salaam ina mamlaka ya kusikiliza maombi na kuendelea na ukazaji wa Deni Tuzo iliyotolewa nje ya Kanda ya Dar es Salaam. 2 2. Kwamba, Shauri ni Res - judicata 3. Kwamba, je Mahakama inaweza kutoa Amri ya kuendelea kwa maombi ya Kazia Hukumu ambayo hayakuwa na sifa. Baada ya kupitia hoja hizo nimeona ni wazi kuwa Wakili wa serikali aliyewakilisha hoja hizo hakuchukua muda akasoma na kutafakari kile kiichopo mbele ya Mahakama hii kwa sasa. Labda kwa faida yake huku nikimsihi mara nyingine achukue muda wa kusoma na kuelewa kinachobishaniwa Mahakamani kwani ni wazi kuwa Wakili wa Serikali hata hakuchukua muda kusoma jalada hili nitafafanua kilichopo mbele yangu. Kwa mujibu wa rekodi zilizopo Mahakamani, Mleta Maombi alisharuhusiwa na Tume ya Usuluhishi na Uamuzi na
Mahakama hii kuhamisha jalada kutoka Songea na kuja kusikilizwa na Mahakaman hii. Na ndio maana shauri hilo lilihamia katika Mahakama hii kwa ajili ya kukazia Hukumu. Pili, hoja ya kuwa shauri ni res-judicata halina msingi kwakuwa kwenye suala la execution, labda pale ambapo itaonekana kuwa Mdai Deni Tuzo (Decree Holder) alishalipwa kile kilichoamriwa na Mahakama, masuala ya res-judicata hayataweza kuletwa kwenye shauri la ukazaji hukumu sababu ni wazi kuwa ukazaji hukumu sio shauri (not a case) bali ni taratibu za kimahakama kuona kwmba amri yake inatekelezwa. 3 Kuhusu kama Mahakama itaweza kutoa Amri ya kuendelea kwa maombi ya Kazia Hukumu ambayo hayakuwa na sifa, na hapa naona ni vyema kumkumbusha Wakili wa serikali, kuwa Tuzo ilishatolewa na haikuwahi kupingwa, Sheria inatutaka kuhakikisha kile cha halali alichoamriwa kupewa na mahakama lazima kilipwe hivyo basi kutumia viupenyo vya kiufundi kujaribu kuepuka msingi wa shauri si kingine bali ni ukiukwaji wa haki za msingi za mdaawa. Lakini kwakuwa suala hili pia halikuzingatiwa na Naibu Msajili na ndio kupelekea kufuta shauri, nitalielezea kwa undani wakati najibu hoja za wadaawa. Nikirudi kwenye hoja ya msingi iliyopo mbele yangu, Mleta maombi aliwasilisha maombi yake kupitia vifungu vya Sheria na Kanuni ya Kifungu cha 94(1) cha sheria ya Ajira na Mahusiano Kazini Fungu la 366 kama ilivyorekebishwa 2019 ikisomwa pamoja
nakanuni ya 24(l)(2)(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f) 3(a)(b)(c) (11) 35(1)(2) 36(2) 55(1) na (2) za kanuni za Mahakama ya Kazi Tangazo la Serikali Na.106 la 2007 pamoja na ■A. .• ■ wito faragha wa maombi haya akiomba (1) Mahakama hii kuitisha jalada la kazia hukumu Na 563/2020 lililotolewa uamuzi tarehe 15/07/2022 kisha kufanya marudio na kufuta amri zote zilizolifuta shauri hilo na kuamuru 4 kulifufua upya kwani Naibu Msajili E.J. Nyembele alikosea kulifuta shauri hilo sababu kulikuwa na amri ya Mahakama ya kuitisha jalada la kazia hukumu Na. 4/2010 iliyotokana na Tuzo iliyotolewa huko Songea. (2) Kwamba Mahakama kuu inaweza kusikiliza na kutoa uamuzi wowote utakaoona unafaa. (3) Kwamba Mahakama Kuu inaweza kutoa nafuu yoyote itakayoona inafaa. Katika kuwasilisha hoja zake, Bwana Hemedi ambaye alimuwakilisha mleta maombi alieleza kuwa mnamo tarehe 15/07/2022, Naibu msajili EJ. Nyembele alitoa amri ya kulifuta shauri hilo Kazia Hukumu Na 563/2020 kwa makosa kwani hakuzingatia kuwa wadaawa wa shauri hilo walishaomba Mahakama kuliitisha jalada la Execution No 4/2010 pamoja na Misc Appl No 8/2014 iliyotokana na Revision No 3/2011 kama inavyosomeka barua ya tarehe 07/02/2017 iliyopokelewa na mjibu maombi tarehe 13/02/2017 na barua ya Tuico ya tarehe 03/03/2017 ambayo ilipokelewa na mjibu maombi tarehe 17/03/2017 ambapo Mahakama Kuu iliridhia na kuitisha majalada hayo kwa barua ya tarehe
06/12/2017 iliyo ambatanishwa na maombi haya ndipo baadae mshinda Tuzo alifungua 5 maombi ya Kazia Hukumu Na 312/2020 ambayo yaliondolewa na Naibu Msajili S.R. Ding'ohi ambaye alitoa ruhusa kwa mshinda Tuzo kuleta maombi yake upya endapo atakua na nia ya kuendelea na maombi yake. Kwamba baada ya maombi ya Kazia Hukumu Na 312/2020 kuondolewa ndipo mshinda Tuzo alifungua maombi mengine Kazia Hukumu Na 563/2020 ambayo yaliondolewa na Naibu Msajili EJ. Nyembele mnamo tarehe 15/07/2022 akidai kuwa maombi hayo yalifunguliwa kimakosa katika Masjala ya Dar es Salaam kwani mgogoro wa kikazi ulitokea na kuamuliwa huko Songea hivyo kuifanya Mahakama Kuu kanda ya Dar es salaam kukosa sifa ya kusikiliza. Bwana Hemedi aliendelea kusema kwamba kutokana na vielelezo hivyo vya maombi ya kuhamisha Shauri kutoka Songea pamoja na amri ya Mahakama Kuu ya kuitisha majalada hayo, ikiwa ni pamoja na nakala za maombi ya kazia Hukumu yaliyofunguliwa na Mshinda Tuz; ni wazi kuwa Naibu Msajili alikosea kutoa Uamuzi huo. Alikazia mawasilisho yake akinukuu ibara ya 13(6)(a) ya Katiba ya Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania ya mwaka 1977 kama inavyofanyiwa marekebisho mara kwa mara akidai kuwa Naibu Msajili E.J. Nyembele alikosea kuyafuta maombi 6 hayo ambayo tayari yalishatolewa amri ya kuletwa katika masjala kuu ya Mahakama ya kazi iliyopo Dar es salaam. Kwa kumalizia aliiomba Mahakama hii tukufu iridhie maombi
haya na kufuta uamuzi huo wa Naibu Msajili EJ.Nyembele wa tarehe 15/07/2022 kisha kuamuru maombi ya Kazia Hukumu Na 563/2020 kuendelea kusikilizwa ili mshinda Tuzo aweze kupata stahiki yake iliyopo kwenye Tuzo iliyotolewa huko Songea na ambayo haijawahi kutenguliwa na Mahakama yeyote. Baada ya kupitia rekodi za Mahakama hii kwenye Jalada la Kukazia hukumu (Execution No. 563/2020) nimeona kuwa Naibu Msajili alijielekeza vibaya kufuta shauri hili kwani hakupitia rekodi zilizopo kwa ufasaha. Katika rekodi za Mahakama inaonyesha kuwepo kwa barua ya Mahakama hii ya tarehe 06 mwezi Disemba Mwaka 2017 yenye kumbukumbu Na. DMK/C.50/17/147 ikimuelekeza Mhe Naibu Msajili wa Mahakama Kuu Songea kuhamishia jalada la Execution Na. 04/2010 lije Masjala Kuu ya Mahakama ya Kazi Dar-es-salaam. Hivyo basi uamuzi wa Naibu Msajili kwamba maombi hayo yalifunguliwa kwenye masijala isiyo yake hayakuwa na mashiko kwakuwa inaonyesha wazi kuwa Naibu Msajili hakupitia 7 kumbukumbu za Mahakama nakuona amri ya Mahakama Kuu iliyoamuru jalada hilo lihame kutoka Songea. Kwa kuzingatia mapungufu haya, Mahakama hii inayakubali maombi haya kwa kuyaweka pembeni maamuzi ya Naibu Msajili ya tarehe 15/07/2022 yaliyofuta Shauri la Kukazia Hukumu Na. 563/2020 lililetwa na mleta maombi. Baada ya kuweka pembeni maamuzi hayo, Mahakama hii inaamuru kuwa Shauri hili lirudishwe kwenye rejesta ya Mahakama na kuendelea kusikilizwa kuanzia pale lilipoishia. Inaamriwa hivyo. Imeamriwa Dar-es-salaam leo tarehe 14 Februari mwaka 2023. 8
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.