20150710 TZHC Dar es Salaam

20150710 TZHC Dar es Salaam

The petition was dismissed because the petitioner failed to exhaust alternative remedies available under the Employment and Labour Relations Act and Labour Institutions Act, as required by section 8(2) of the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act, Cap. 3. The court held that the dispute was an employment matter for which adequate statutory remedies existed, and the constitutional petition was therefore incompetent.

Citation
20150710 TZHC Dar es Salaam
Parties
Petitioner: Projsetus Propsper Mulokozi; 1st Respondent: The Chief Secretary; 2nd Respondent: The Permanent Secretary (Establishment), President's Office Public Service Management; 3rd Respondent: The Chief Court Administrator; 4th Respondent: The Attorney General
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
10 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Cause (constitutional Petition) / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Exhaustion of Remedies, Jurisdiction, Employment Rights, Constitutionality of Statutes, Judicial Review
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Labour Law Administrative Law Exhaustion of Remedies Jurisdiction Employment Rights Constitutionality of Statutes Judicial Review

Case Brief

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 4 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Projsetus Propsper Mulokozi

Petitioner

The Chief Secretary

1st Respondent

The Permanent Secretary (Establishment), President's Office Public Service Management

2nd Respondent

The Chief Court Administrator

3rd Respondent

The Attorney General

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Civil Cause (constitutional Petition) / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petition is incompetent for failure to exhaust alternative remedies under section 8(2) of the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act, Cap. 3
  2. 2 Whether the dispute is properly before the High Court as a constitutional petition or should have been pursued under labour laws
  3. 3 Whether the directives and orders by the 1st and 2nd respondents are unconstitutional

Ratio Decidendi

The petition was dismissed because the petitioner failed to exhaust alternative remedies available under the Employment and Labour Relations Act and Labour Institutions Act, as required by section 8(2) of the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act, Cap. 3. The court held that the dispute was an employment matter for which adequate statutory remedies existed, and the constitutional petition was therefore incompetent.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Petition dismissed for failure to exhaust alternative remedies under section 8(2) of Cap. 3
  • No order as to costs