MISC NO 6470 OF 2024 GLORIA THOMSON MWAMUNYANGE VRS PRECISION AIR TANZANIA LIMITED

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA LABOUR DIVISION AT DAR-ES-SALAAM MISC. LABOUR APPLICATION NO. 6470 OF 2024 REFERENCE CASE NUMBER 202403251000006470 BETWEEN GLORIA THOMSON MWAMUNYANGE................ .................. APPLICANT VERSUS PRECISION AIR TANZANIA LIMITED ................................ RESPONDENT RULING Date of last Order: 06/ 05/2024 Date of Ruling: 21/ 05/2024 MLYAMBINA, 3. Before the Court it is an application for extension of time to lodge the notice of Appeal against Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Tanzania, Labour Division at Dar es Salaam (Hon. Z.G. Muruke J), dated 14th December 2018 in Revision No. 292 o f 2017. The dispute involves the claim of unfair termination of the Applicant's employment. Initially, the dispute was referred to the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration (herein CMA). After considering the parties evidence, the CMA delivered the Award in the Applicant's favour. Later on, the Respondent preferred an application for revision to this Court where the Court set aside the CMA's Award on the ground that the Applicant's employment was of fixed term, hence, terminated automatically upon expiry of the agreed period. Aggrieved by the Court's decision, the Applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal where her appeal was struck out on 7th December, 2023 on the ground that it did not constitute issues of law. After the striking out, the Applicant filed an application for extension of time before this Court which was registered as Miscellaneous Labour Application No. 2580 o f 2024 in order to start afresh with the appeal processes by re-lodging the notice of appeal. The said application was struck out on 19th March 2024 for being incompetent. Therefore, this is the second application for extension of time. The application was argued by way of written submissions. In the conduct of this case, the Applicant was represented by Mr. Sylivanus Mayenga, learned Counsel. On the other hand, Mr. Norbert Tarimo, learned Counsel appeared for the Respondent. I appreciate the comprehensive submissions of the parties which shall be taken on board in due course of constructing this ruling. After considering the rival submissions of the parties, I find the Court is called upon to determine only one issue; whether the Applicant adduced sufficient reason for the grant o f the application at hand. As the record speaks, the application is for extension of time to lodge the notice of appeal against the decision of this Court. The requirement of lodging notice before this Court is governed by The Court o f Appeal Rules, GN 368 o f2009 (herein CAR) specifically Rule 83 which is to the following effect: Section 83. -(1) Any person who desires to appeal to the Court shall lodge a written notice in duplicate with the Registrar of the High Court. (2) Every notice shall, subject to the provisions of Rules 91 and 93, be so lodged within thirty days of the date of the decision against which it is desired to appeal. The Applicant accounted for the delay as follows; that after being informed of the Court of Appeal ruling on 08/12/2023, she tried to meet with her Advocate on 15/12/2023 to instruct him to proceed with the appeal processes. That, unfortunately the Advocate informed the Applicant that he has commenced Court vacation and he would resume work on 01/02/2024. Further, on 01/02/2024 the Advocate failed to meet with the Applicant because he attended Law Day, hence they met on 02/02/2024. Mr. Mayenga went on to submit that from 02/02/2024 when he was instructed to initiate the appeal processes, he started to prepare the application and filed the same on 09/02/2024. As stated above, the said application was struck out on 19/03/2024 for being incompetent. It was Mr. Mayenga's further submission that after the striking out, the Applicant tried to file several applications on 20/03/2024, 21/03/2024 and 22/03/2024 which were all rejected. Again, on 25/03/2024 he managed to file the present application. He therefore urged the Court to grant the application at hand. Mr. Tarimo strongly contested the application and challenged the Applicant for producing evidence in her submission which is contrary to the law as it was held in the case of Rosemary Stella Chambejairo v. David Kitundu Jairo, Civil Reference No. 6 of 2018, page 14 (unreported). He argued that the requirement to account for each and every day of the delay was stated in the case of Bharya Engineering & Contracting Co. Ltd v. Hamoud Ahmed Nassor, Civil Application No. 342/01 of 2017 citing with the approval the case of Hassan Bushiri v. Latifa Lukio Mashayo, Civil Application No. 3 of 2007 (both unreported), in which the Court had an occasion to underline the dire need for litigants who seek to extend time in taking actions within which certain steps could be taken, to account for each and every day of the delay. It was Mr. Tarimo's submission that the Applicant failed to account for each day of the delay and her Advocate exhibited negligence and inaction. He referred to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Lyamuya Construction Company Limited v. Board of Registered Trustees of Young Women's Christian Association of Tanzania, CAT - Civil No. 2 of 2010 (unreported), where the Court laid down the key conditions on the grant of extension of time. He was of the view that the criteria stated in the referred case are not met in the present application. I join hands with Mr. Tarimo's arguments and the cases cited thereto. In an application for extension of time, the Applicant has to account for each day of the delay. In the present application, the impugned decision was delivered on 14/12/2018. The period from when the contested decision was delivered to 07/12/2023 when the appeal was struck out by the Court of Appeal, such period is excluded because the Applicant was in Court corridors pursuing for his right. Therefore, the Applicant is obliged to account for each day of the delay from when the appeal was struck out by the Court of Appeal to the date when the present application was filed. After the ruling of the Court of Appeal was delivered, the Applicant took 15 days to decide if he still needed to pursue the appeal or not. Again, while knowing that the matter originates from a long period of time and in disregard of the law of limitation, the Advocate informed her client that he began Court vacation, and he will resume work on 01/02/2024. With due diligence, I have gone through the Public Notice announcing Court vacation during the alleged term. The notice was issued on 14/11/2023 to the general public and the legal fraternity that from 15th December 2023 to 31st January 2024 the High Court of Tanzania will be on vacation. It was further informed that, during the vacation the Court could sit only for criminal cases and the transaction of other businesses of an urgent nature. There is no any other circular, announcement or directives informing the parties and the general public that cases would have not been admitted during the Court vacation. Therefore, the submission that the Counsel started Court vacation and could have not attended his client (the Applicant herein), is of no value. The Court vacation did not preclude the Counsel from filing the application as alleged. Even after resuming work from the Court vacation, the Counsel took 18 days to prepare the application for extension of time and filed the same on 19/02/2024. That shows negligence and inaction on the part of the Applicant which cannot be condoned by the Court. As cited in the case of Lyamuya Construction Company Limited (supra), the Applicant at hand failed to account for each day of the day. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, it is my view that the Applicant has not adduced sufficient reason for the grant of extension of time sought. Thus, the application is hereby dismissed. It is so ordered. YJ. MLYAMBINA JUDGE 21/05/2024 Ruling delivered and dated 21st May, 2024 in the presence of Counsel Magori Nyamoyo for the Applicant and Nobert Tarimo for the Respondent. Right of Appeal explained. 21/05/2024