19920617 TZHC Dar es Salaam

'\\-\ c_ bsn1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA J__;__J==> o°' ) . /\T DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL CASE NOo73 OF 1991 GV \ERT- EDWARD RWEYEMAMU • • .,. ••• -PLAINTIFF v~rsus • i 'TAJ~ANIA WOOD INDUDTRY coJ.,oRA'l'ION o Q o •• ~ . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . DEFENDANT I i RULHfG -·- ··- . RTJBAMA, Jt GCISBEF!' EDWARD RWEYEMAMU 1;s suing TANZANIA WOOD INDUSTRY C.QRPURATICtf for wrCJngful termi\: 3t1c,n of emplt>yrnent., He had been. ~itployeA o,~ two years contract ,.-=mA posltioneA at tl'ie time of him . i - ',. I . -t:e-,.natiot· as General Manager of Tabcra Msitu P~o~ucts~Co~any ~\~. In ·:_f \e Written Staterent ._.,f ~efence, T8 nzan1a Wood inAustry toipo?'ati1u raise a preliminary objection that '.::h:t;; eourt har.i no jurisAi~t·ton to enter-t;:ain the suit as is proviAeA bS, s.23{1) of· i • . . •he iteeur ty of Employment Act Cnpo -57~. This raiseA {)bjectit)t', .. ~a• argu(•., by Mt'!$. Mulebya, learneA a-4vocate for the Aefen..iant. Mr. MJ!IQga :uga, A Labour Off·ic:er appearing for the plaintiff ~eplieA., tI Mits., Mulebya submit teA that b:1 virtue of S • 2G (1) of-the Sef!Urity of E~loyrnent Act 1964 1 this court haA no juris;itiction to enten-tain the suitt1 She quote;:,1 :1everal -cases that ha,. -'ealt with chi• que;!;tion of o~sting cf juris"'iction: Kitui'iALi _Sisal Estate v,. Shingo anA Others 1970 EeA• 557, a cnse -'eciAeA by .the East . • Af~ican Coupt of APpeal; ~ames Sankey v. M/S CalteX Oil 1973 LaT n. 46 (l3iron, J.)_; Walter,Ja2er .. Vo Cor:t\Jla LtA,_ t/a Tansza..- : il nx_ika Tourist Hot~ls anA oyster nay Hotel (1972) H.Cory• 133 (Ony1uke 1 . J.) .•. In reply Mra Mrugaruga referred-the c,.,urt to-the- - Sef.!urity of Employment (AmenAment) Act 1 1~69 anA s~e caseC "e01i"e,. unAer it l Walter Jager Va Corbula LtA; tia Tanganyika Tourist ~otels anA oy~er na¥ Hotel (supra) an~ ryavid Kamugisha ~. nukoe Lt,.. Civil Case No.49f90 (Mwanza1 Registry) (un h'.:-ep._e~ecl) sekul.e,J. Mr. MrugU'l,lga submitteA that th,:: trial c,)urt i~ not expecteA to ~iSrn1$s the plaint as calleA upon by Mrs. Mulebya but stay the suit ; 2 leaving either party seek the labour officer's opinion o• w~ethe, ot not the plaintiff .as in this ease is in a managerial - po1j,tio~, Ml, Mrog6ruga, wen~ on the suJ;mi t that the labour officer.• ti opia,o• . . . obtained /in the case unJer consi-'eration. I, h·asten to pp1n• _. oa this last submission that there is no recor~ in the . I •s•e fUe .that SUf por·l:$ the submission. I ._have f1one __ through alJ the cases re:fef'reA to the eoun. -eweP• ,~, •he ease~ of ,!laVir'I 1<arnu9:Jsha;_y; Bykoe tctA. (supra). I e~l11~ &av- my-nau..iis on t.his case nctwithstan,.ing my ef~ort.s. on-~heft . I .,..i.ae .. casr, the prayer by '."lrs. Mulebya cannot be grante,., : I ~tpJ •• the/. preliJD.i.nary objection for want of me_rit. l)nl1k~ as was the case ~.n Jame:, Sanke;cv. Ws Caltex;,o" ,.,,., 6i ~II !l2i-fhat easy in the pxesent case to ::.ete.rrnine the .que.q. . r, f'e .iiJrisA! ct.ion of this cou~t to hear anA Aetermine t)te ease beffr I labour geti~-t1p. . I officer's -'Pinic'.ln of-whether the pla.intift9 ,.,., Off!p;.oye-" ~n the management ol the -1efen~an~•s business or not. II 1 'fhe eircupstances I~go the wu;_~ unyiuke, J. went in the-case of ~ ~r2jf v. /:or-4ula-Ltn; t/a TaJ;anyi~a Ti>y.11ist Hotels ap" oxt,e.r 0 Ho.l,,l· (sppra) ann orner stay j ,f the suit leavin·g 1 t open, in the q' . \ ~ s o~ onyiuke 1 J. in the c~:se quot:eA above, ~at p. 136 1 "for et,l\u I , 'I' ~ obta~n the opinion of the labour t>rfice.r unAer section 4(e} of iJle I jecurtt~ · of Employment Act as amenAeR by the seeur.ity of Employme,,.1 I. ,A»'&.z:i..--~·nent) Act, No .. 45 o__f 1969." It is so orAereA• I { / =;i~~ JUt,GE 26/5/92 . fO•aJl'I: RU;)AMA 1 J • Ms, M~rugaruga for plai~tiff. Nr•• Mulebya fo~ defennant. R\)ling ~eliveren. c··· ···. ~~---~~ YAHYA RU3~A · JU'l)GE 26/5/92 YAHYA RUiJ JUDGE 26/5/92