20100823 TZHC Dar es Salaam

S'f' . . , r~t~~ . i -- :.ii. J~\,{j: I -~. ,/.. : V\''J I

I I I . I~- THE 1~~~-·-~~0-~RT ~.F TANZA.~1.A ,. I .. . .. ,l.:ABOUR DIVISION !. .I • ' ' ~J • ,. \ . ', ~ • AT

I

DAR ES SALAAM I ~ibson the employee/applicant in this matter referred a labour dispute to 0 ··: · .· it:~:::g:r:~:1:;~:~:YI:::;~e~:n:i~t~::e~~:~t:e::;i~~i:~lat: : I I • ··. • I . ; ~Iace: _:.~f recruitment; . pay1ent of subs1ste_nc~ rillowance from date of . . trmination, until repatpatio . The employer successfully disputed the claim · . at the. :CMA on groynd t at Gibson was recruited at the plac~ of l +rrn]n~~on, At the CMA, an in this court, both parties were :represented : oy. counsel· Mr.Mwakipesile or Gibson and Mr. Nassoro Advocate of Law I ·. . . . : :· : antj ~ustice :Chamber for the employer . . \·'· : . . <, l· :l . . . . . . l . .· ' ' . ft' · +.· ·. :After \going through ~e filed: documents I have noted that the . ! : ' · •. • .. er:rip~oyee's affidavit in support of the application was not in compliance :' •f:~i~JJ { . (. ;.-.; l ,t:•(t ·~~ri-•r ,,}/'°l:',~_-"f.::..11 t~si/'.i~ :,?:~~,~ :·,'·~: . -:r :. I. · '• •;i~ • t~ : C O' !~ : : with rule 24 (3) (c) of the. Labour Court Rules, GN 106/2009 in that; it t;; iI.lrni~;in~;~a{ratio-~ ~fithe efidence ~?ci facts a? pr~se,ntid to,t,h~ arbitrat~~ ltl_1·,{{§Jt_ .c/~~s ~'.>.I ~ft :r contai? 'sttment of )ega/ issues' fhat'.a/')Se"from f~k rads''. Put 1 ;:.I,-8itterentlY;4the employee has given no grounds for seeking t~,Y.ision, what_ Ii ,f:·t ~e;~rr.t to ~e sought 1eems is an appeal which is not a mand~te of this ~in

tl{rlftJ~rt:' Thc;1t ·ground 'i~ in tself sufficient to make this court find the i· .- :i '} ·r·'·i;~,;catioA.\ncompetent and strike it ' '' t' _, ') ., . - I I cbff. I ' .. - }(( ·1•, :.i!rf ·. : -. : i · · . ·· · . I i,,.' :i);.,t;:;;\". . ' ~If,,, ,_.,.ih:,M·;j~~·1.1mr h ti _..hh I d i, -: ; ,· . f h. __, ,- . ! 1 ,· i ' ::· ,ir~{t::1r··11r:1}f(I:i;r~'.}:~;1_c:1~f;i; ?VI/eve~:. gone 1royg I t 1e recor . to see i t ere a re any ll~~- .·l-, ~,~11 ~ 1;,.,., .. 1\P!Vtt~-1,:~1-{1w.~: "f •• , , . 'f ~~a P~:: t~~~ 1 ~( t,[~~;d~p~~-~~:e ~:~:~~~n:rt ;:~~ci::~~: ~;:e::e o;h:::i:~: :J .·.\ t!Je employ~e was recruited ta place other than where he was terminated i~:-,. :. J.~~nn_9r ~j' ,. 44,• ,. pe ,taulted. To_ appr ciate that conclusi9n I.r~pr9duc~.;!~e releva,nt t"• ,:; ~• ! :- ~ !. ·,,,,1, . ' •• ';tl·!'!,-t_upart:,; <•" ,, • !·; ·.:,,,·, ·... , I ' ~:l :: ;:; ·:•t'·,. • ' ·.,.ti: r • ' '\ I t(f: ;\;,t:,:f.,i.-·;)\,;i,jff\i· ,S;:: . ~i; ,'';•.:rt f'.Y' •,;;i,,••,r:• '\' ' .' . • ' : . ' I : • i I ·'; ,, . , J ,, '• 11r ,[.Jr.'.[: '' •~,,~:· .' ~ · - "It is ion record trat co~plainant .was employed by .the respo~dent on 1st (fJ \<· . se;terber, 2006. \he cot mission rTcalls the testimony of the complainant that 1: herwa phoned by Kenneth Lwakata~e on 9th January, 2006~ and therealter after 7 (t·:: ·. : ., ' · r~portihg he was assignel to ·do sdme auditing and then prepared the

report ·,tiJ_.' , . .} L.:.,_\\~i,.f,;;'•,~·hi_:h. !cu,lminat~d t~ the lrrests of ~ix employees: anegedlY,: for mis~·pprop~iating . Jri-:_i;iit_\_tlth.~_- _;r:;_i_ ·J.·, J~ ... "•b.;,,,,.•! . _f;;.•:1• 1. I .'_t_\•r_~sP._·onden_t. m_ onies. When ·asked under cro_ss exam_ ination .. _how lo'rig. he - . - .' .. . ' . :I; ._t_?; "t)i~~4]~-¥ _.'.::~!~~6it;~~:c:t~~~tfi~··1~ork, ~he co~~1l1~,i~t. ~tated ~~-~l';f 11s t~~~!r:·eeks in. the ... ~ ~'· ,.. 1 • ,1,:• ~•- ' • ' ' . . ~ ~- [: · ·- ,. :i month of January, 2006. e was further asked: if the received any payment as i r.' ' \l the results of the ~aid work the complainant replied that the did .not receive any ' '. ; It, ;• .;J?;, I:-~·~~~,· '1 r '1r• ~ ~.: ', ~t"·J·k, --d· '_ pa~n:~.nt. If the f©regoin ' t j disposltiOn of the : complainant wer~ ~he case; it :· : • .. I' 'I- / 1 i-f'' . ·. -..,.i !' ' i f:}';:·· .: i··:~f\,; ·J~-T~.e~ts_ th~t b~~f~n.9 ~~nuary, ~006 an~ l st :se~te~ber, 290;~:he wa~ no~,_. 1 ~i-0\. the\ employee of'tne resp ndent. Tnrough his own testimony the complainant :";,. '· ,~;,-":f'J' ;· I ,',1)1.1F.i',', '% fr•·At ,- ; I •. ,. ' , ,;!' {::i :·:itI:,'.;•7:· .': . ~ .: i . ,, i j I: . i -: -t,,;i, .... r .-r:-.,.., f;~ f-· I . 1 (-:··I· . i ' , , . .-,I 1. ' I ,, i admitted under cross examination that on the day . he entered on the ( :• . :. ,·· emplo)'ment relationship ~ith the respondent he was at Dar es

Salaam. This ~- \·· . further suggest that the complainant must have been working or staying I , '· •: :somewhere within the ci~ of Dar es salaam prier to this employment with the h. .. . (: · , '. · _>_ i :re~pondent on i""S€J)tem fer, 2006. fhie i:oi-n mi ssi or1 finds as high Iy probable the : :,. respondent version that complainant was wo·rking with the Trillion and Co. Ltd : .: · under Kenn'eth LwakataJe before joining the , respondent company on 1st . Septery,ber, 2006. : . [The. complai'nant completely silent as to what went wrong for the · ' ·.··· delayed employment afte being summoned from Kyela early January, 2006 to report' for the work whic as it turns out commenced on 1st Septembe;:, 2006. i ·:·The eyidence as to whet ~er there were formal complaints on that regard was :.· . 1 n~ver :raised_ before this ommission; The on!y thing .the complainant could tell I·\:': :,:_:; · 2006, this co,mmissiol!~Y\i-9.s that , e done auditing and it is report sometime in January, I by his own testimony he not pa:d. I got puzzled '..., ,the assignment which ;_:? ·f ;.. · · whkh ·profession work is cking consideration. The complainant did not disclose 1 1 f, i. •. . ~ , : ·· to the commission the terms of the said work. If the respondent was in need of the accountant at that mJ~erial point as alleged by the complainant (PWl) and ~ : .·· · .PW2 and therefore jnstruc1ed PW2 to find the

suitable accountant who trun to be : ·>I• I' :'.·i : • ::~~~ t_:::it::1:~~~:~j:Y:::~t;le:;~~drt~:;t~;ne: :::~::~e ;~:~:: \ f·' :- <not un:t1I 1st September, 2006 a span of eight months. The comm1 s1on reJects 7 0 j .: the evidence of the PW2 t~at he was instructed by the respondent to recruit the _. ·-:; ·1' : . · .: .. co~pl_~inant because the 7ame is not supported any documentary evidence such as_;offifial letter or ,any w,itten agre~ment speci~ing _the s_aid instructions. The :-,: t I,, , ; : •• • .. • 0 f ~o.rmlfslon therefo'.e finds that PW2iwas not vestrd with a~y mandate to act as ,c:,l'.i{ [ t Oi ,an age_nt of the responde+ for the purpose of sol/citation qt the complainant. If 10 :· · ~ . · i:· :-~at all: the complainant is entitled for the repatriation such costs are supposed to . . ,!! i ,· . " ' . ' , . { :.,::·::::be:borhe by the PW2." 3 , i ' II I i I . . . . I · .; ·,, ·H~~i~g concluded as ~ have, I find that the application h~s no merit and dismiss it. I ·I,., . . ! . . . . . I ,. :·>;_-y . ~ ,.- ♦ 'i ~ ,. •, . .. ' . 1·., I .9/C ,. ,-}~;~;;}. ' i:;1{~ : ~ ., t

JUDGE · ,.. · , -:-rr:,_ :,i 17/8/2010 . ' :. . ··: . 1-. •· .• lj; '1./' .r, ...,. ... l}·~·\::;' :· n:,(1· ...;,;' . ~ . '' I j I. I. I l '.I,';•. ",.. -1· 'I . I I .. ·• · .. r. '.-. I;.' l I ., ' f :I • I .I , I I i .' i . .. I. 4 I; , -~.... ! ·, . 'T"""!"~--- - ·""