MISC NO 22770 OF 2024 GOODLUCK BANK ANZAAMEN MEENA VRS LETSHEGO BANK TANZANIA LTD Copy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA LABOUR DIVISION AT PAR ES SALAAM MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 22770 OF 2024 BETWEEN GOODLUCK ANZAAMEN MEENA................................ APPLICANT VERSUS LETSHEGO BANK TANZANIA LTD ........................... RESPONDENT RULING Date of Last Order: 17/ 10/2024 Date of Ruling: 21/ 10/2024 MLYAMBINA. J. There is no dispute that Applicant was employed by the Respondent. It is also undisputed that the Applicant was later on terminated from his employment contract basing on allegation of operational requirements. Aggrieved by the termination, he filed a Labour Dispute at the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration (herein CMA) which was registered as CMA/DSM/KIN/639/2023. After hearing, the Dispute was dismissed on 16th February 2024 for being time barred. Being out of time to file an application for Revision, the Applicant then filed this application for extension of time so as file the intended Revision Application. The application was supported by his own sworn affidavit raising an issue Whether the Applicant has adduced sufficient reasons to grant extension o f time. The Respondent filed her counter affidavit sworn by Mr. Emmanuel Sood, Applicant's Learned Advocate opposing the application. The application was disposed by way of written submissions. Counsel Issack Zake appeared and argued on behalf of the Applicant and Counsel Emmanuel Sood appeared and argued on behalf of the Respondent. I have dully considered the rival submissions of the parties which will be considered on board in due course of constructing this ruling. Basing on the parties' pleadings and submissions, the main issue to be determined is; whether Applicant has adduced reason warranting extension o f time. In an application for extension of time, the Court has power to grant or refuse it. That power is vested under rule 56(1) o f the Labour Court Rules G.N. No. 106 o f 2007 which provides that; in an application for extension of time, a good reason for lateness must be shown. For easy reference it reads: The Court may extend or abridge any period prescribed by these rules on application and on good cause shown, unless the Court is precluded from doing so by any written law. The term good cause has not been determined, but there are some factors which needs to be considered in proving a good cause. In the case of ZET Construction Company Limited v. Kalokora Bwesha & Cecilia Boniface Shivo (Civil Application No. 314/01 of 2022) [2024] TZCA 197 it was held that: There is no universal definition of what amounts to good cause. The Court is bound to consider the prevailing circumstances of the particular case and should also be guided by a number of factors such as the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the degree of prejudice the Respondent stands to suffer if time is extended, whether the Applicant was diligent and whether there is a point of law of sufficient importance such as illegality of the decision sought to be challenged. Mr. Issack Zake, on behalf of the Applicant stated that; after the decision, which is intended to be revised, if this application is granted, was pronounced on 16th February 2024. The Applicant used those days up to 21st February 2024 to prepare document for an application for condonation. He stated that the same was registered as CMA/DSM/KIN/77/2024, it was heard and its decision was pronounced on 27th August 2024. He added that; from 27th August 2024 to 31st August 2024, the Applicant took the matter to his Advocate who promised to read the said documents. From 1st September 2024 to 11th September, 2024 were used for preparation, drafting and signing of document and filed the same on 12th September 2024. On the other hand, Counsel Emmanuel Sood for the Respondent stated that Applicant ought to have accounted days from 16th February 2024 to 12th September 2024. But he only accounted 11 days out of 210 days, and so he did not account for 199 days. It is my view that basing on the reason stated by Counsel Issack Zake for the Applicant, the delay is technical. The reason is that evidence shows after the intended application for revision was dismissed, the Applicant filed another dispute which concerned both parties over the same matter and the same was decided on 27th August 2024. For that reason, it proves that the Applicant during all that time was in Court's corridor. The same position was held in the case of ZET Construction Company Limited vs Kalokora Bwesha & Cecilia Boniface Shivo (supra) in which it was stated that: ...It is a trite law that, any delay arising from the time the Applicant used in Court's corridor pursuing his right, whether incompetently or otherwise is not an actual delay. It is referred to as technical delay which constitutes good cause for the grant of extension of time. In the application at hand, from 27th August 2024 to 11th September, 2024 the Applicant stated that he used those days in reading, preparing, drafting and signing of document, whereas on 12th September 2024, he used to file the same. On the issue of negligence raised by Counsel Counsel Emmanuel Sood for the Respondent, it is my view for that the Applicant was already penalized by application No. CMA/DSM/KIN/77/2024 being struck out. Hence can not be punished twice. The same has been emphasized in the case of Fortunatus Masha v. William Shiia when it was referred in the case of ZET Construction Company Limited v. Kalokora Bwesha & Cecilia Boniface Shivo (supra) that: In the circumstance, the negligence if any really refers to the filing of an incompetent appeal not the delay in Wing it. The Wing of an incompetent appeal having been duly penalised by striking it out, the same cannot be used yet again to determine the timeousness of applying for filing the fresh appeal. In fact, in the present case, the Applicant acted immediately after the pronouncement of the ruling of this Court striking out the first appeal. In the end result, the Applicant is given 14 days to file an intended Revision Application. To be more specific the filing should be not later than 4th November 2024. This being a labour matter, no order as to costs. It is so ordered. Y.J. MLYAMBINA JUDGE 21/10/2024 Ruling delivered virtually and dated 21st October, 2024 at 12:35pm in the presence of Counsel Issack Zake for the Applicant and Emmanuel Sood for the Re-'-— A— *