faraja msaki and 5 others vs crdb bank plc 2023 tzhc 16647 30 january 2023

faraja msaki and 5 others vs crdb bank plc 2023 tzhc 16647 30 january 2023

The CMA erred in finding the applicants guilty of gross negligence based on investigation reports not tendered before the Disciplinary Committee and in treating their statements as admissions. There was no proof of breach of duty or resultant loss. Termination was therefore unfair, and all applicants are entitled to compensation of 12 months' salary, but not general damages.

Citation
faraja msaki and 5 others vs crdb bank plc 2023 tzhc 16647 30 january 2023
Parties
Applicant: Faraja Msaki; Applicant: Zitha Kilongo; Applicant: Mwaya Wambura; Applicant: Anna Gamba; Applicant: Mawazo Nyandwi; Applicant: Leah Chamgeni; Respondent: CRDB Bank PLC
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
30 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Labour Revision / Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed in part; CMA award revised and quashed in respect of findings against applicants; compensation of 12 months' salary awarded to all applicants; general damages denied.
Legal Topics
Unfair Termination, Gross Negligence, Employment Compensation, Disciplinary Procedure
Source Language
English
Labour Law Unfair Termination Gross Negligence Employment Compensation Disciplinary Procedure

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Faraja Msaki

Applicant

Zitha Kilongo

Applicant

Mwaya Wambura

Applicant

Anna Gamba

Applicant

Mawazo Nyandwi

Applicant

Leah Chamgeni

Applicant

CRDB Bank PLC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Revision / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants committed gross negligence justifying termination
  2. 2 Whether the termination was based on fair reasons
  3. 3 Whether the termination procedure was fair

Ratio Decidendi

The CMA erred in finding the applicants guilty of gross negligence based on investigation reports not tendered before the Disciplinary Committee and in treating their statements as admissions. There was no proof of breach of duty or resultant loss. Termination was therefore unfair, and all applicants are entitled to compensation of 12 months' salary, but not general damages.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; CMA award revised and quashed in respect of findings against applicants; compensation of 12 months' salary awarded to all applicants; general damages denied.

Orders

  • Award of 12 months' salary to 5th applicant upheld.
  • 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 6th applicants also awarded compensation of 12 months' salary each.