godfrey selendo others vs chairman industrial court of tanzania another 2002 tzhc 2043 26 september 2002

IN THE HIGH COUV.T C'E T/JTS*ITIA. AT EG GAl,'Jll MISC. CIVIL a : PLIC/.TJ-OTf NO. 30/2000 GODFREY SELENDO ....................1ST A??LIC W T S . KIM AMP 0 .......... .........2ND APPLIC \I>!T A. MAEMB3 .........3RD APPLIC ANT V 3 Ii G U G THE CHAXRM1N INDU3TRIA7~» COUET OF TANS A N I A ............ . . . .......... 1ST RESPONDENT THE ATTORNEY GELTEEA " . ..... ........ 2ND RESPONDENT - EULHTG Tho applicants Godfrey Gelendo, E. KimatnBo and A. Mao«abe are ex employees of Tanzania Dreweries Ltd and had their employment terminated on 30th* Say of April 1999 according- to their respective affidavits filed* i.t? support of the application ♦ for extension of time for leave for orders of Certiorari and Mandamus. The application cf the a"r'!icants has been filed pursuant to section 14 of tho Lay •.•1- .• ;n AC+ '.^71 „,1 oection 95 of the Civil /roi.c C o ©, in paragraphs seven of their affidavits to © arr '-'iointo Capone that the Voluntarv Agreement the basis upon which. their employment was terminated was filed in court after to sir termination and the award came to their knowledge sometime in February 2000 in Civil Case No, 406/99. It is on record th-’t the Voluntary Agreement oecam© an award on l/5/99 upon itc registration on 14/5/99* The applicants are aggrieved that the said Voluntary Agreement was filed in court after the termination of their services and the same was given retrospective effect. Furthermore the Voluntary Agreement in view of the applicants is illegal for, aa..ng other reasons, one ox t.;.?o inomoors of the penel did not sign the Agreement. In' t u n s of paragraphs 1 1 of both, affidavits the applicants depone that they failed to know about the existence of the Voluntary Agreement because the same came into existence after they were terminated from employment hence the application before the court. 2 The respondents or their part have raised a preliminary objection to the effect that th a application is incompetent to the extent that it does not more the court proparly for having teen filed under section 95 oi' the Civil Procedure an -n^ otners. It xs fur'Cu:;r a_ guod by the respondents that che jurisdiction, of the Court to gr-,r,t relief b y the way of prerogative o r ^ r s derive.-- from section 2 (2 ) of the Judicature and Application of Laws, Cap 453 and Sections 17(2) and 1? A of the Reform (Fatal Accident and *iiiscollaneious. Provision) Ordinance as amended by Act No. 55 of 1963 and Act No. 27 of 1991. In addition the application would bo incompetent before the court because is does not have an. accompanying statement an? dr.os not disclose any of the ^ jtld itxv/DS precedent for tn a oosuo of prerogative orders. Xn reply to the contention •of too respondents, the applicants sub®it that the application n t hand is for extension of time to file an a ; - l i c - i ^ for leave out of time aud as such section 14 of the .-aw of Limitation Ac + 1971 sr^uuded on the- format provided f ..r.J.er Order XLll(2) of the Civil Procedure Cods 196-5* It is quite evident fro- the record that indeed the application before the court is for extension of time to file an application for leave for orders of certiorari and mandamus filoo unaer Section l4(l) of the Law of Limitation Act and 95 of the Civil Procedure Code 1956. However under the provision; of Section 13(l) of the Law Inform (Fatal Accidents and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Ho, 53 of i960 " the Chief Justice ■oas been empowered to make rules of court prescribing the procedure and the fees payable or documents to be filed or issued in cases where an order of nnndamis, prohibition or certiorari is sought-, To dato 00 cooh rules have been made by the Chief Justice as such resort is to be made to the practice in England. Such practice -;:-ld require the filing or a chamber s u ^ o o s , accompanied by an affidavit and a statement. The application before the court lacks th- Ie statement an important ingredient tc the applicatioj >n, To this extent I accept the oybaiosioa of the learned • 5 tato Attorney Mr. Cbidowu tbit t>a court is entitled to strzs.ee out the application for being incompetently before it* la the event x strike out tr e application without costs. the order of striking ,ut thc- ipplication has sufficiently disposed of the a;. _ Lication I find no useful purpose to deal with other points raised despite their seemingly relevance and ijnjw^ajjce. I so order. "" *.. ■ . i V—-■( v-.'-, lAA6\ 25/9/2002 ;urt£ Ruling delivered this 26 / 9 / 2002 before the applicants and in the absence of f;e ror,pendente who is to be notified. Applicants; My Lord we pray to 00 supplied with copy of the Ruling, Court % Prayer granted. _/±b !d 0 26 /9/2002