19980330 TZHC Dar es Salaam

.,;,. 1· . n~"" /. IN •lHJ~ HIGH C01h{11 OF' Ti\.ilZAi''HA (Diill ES SALAAM DISTRICT .. REGISTRY) AT Dli.H .E:.S SALA.AM . CIVIL. ~PEAL NO. 100 OF 1997 I ■ ooo••••••••••••••••••••~• APPELLAl'J'I'S VJ~RSUS . ' WIRE INDU.SI'RY C.:OHPANY LIMITED ~ 0 o, • • • • • 0 • e O •• e • e O O e • RESPON.uBN'l' JUDGMEN'r . -'., ,· CHIP1'I:TA " J.: The appellants, Haroub Seif and 23 Others, used to be employees of the :respondent, Wire Industry Co. Limited. At the time--of their engagement, each of the appellants signed an Oral contra•t in which each of them clearly indicated his place of domicile. ,"! In 1993, the respondent and the Organization of Tanzania Trade Unions (OT'I'U) entered into a Voluntary Agreement. Clause 603 of tha.t Agreement provided as follows:- Terminated workers will be given all dues as per Labour Laws and transport fare3 to the place of domicile with the family and maximum of three children under 18 years of age. Luggage will not be more ·than one and a half tons by the cheapest means of transport·' •. In March, 1996, the appellants were terminated and. all their dues we:;:-e paid to them. '£he respondent, however, :refused to pay them -transport fares to places of their domicile. 'I'he a:ppellaTlts then filed this suit in Kisutu Re$ident Magistrate es 'Cour-L T'.1e trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that all the appellants·were domiciled in Dar es Salaam where their 2 place of work was. Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, they filed this appeaJ\ During the hearing of this appeal, Ms. Uwiso for the appel).ants, submitted, in effect, tl~at the judgment of the trial .court w:µ.,s against the weight of the ·evidence, and that the learned trial principal-resident magi"strate erred in interpreting Clause 6.3 of the Voluntary Agreelilento Dr. Ngu.luma, lero-ned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the decision of the trial court was faultless in that tl~e appellant's oral contracts showed, without exception, that all of them!were dotniciled in Dar es Salaam. That being so, he submitted:, the ~ppell-;mts were not entitled to transport for repatriation. The p~rtinent evidence on record as to the appellants' domicile is to be found in the appe •. lants 1 records of oral contracts w)1.ich er1ch of th.em signed at the time of his engagement., These were produced in court as exhibits by the appellants themselves. Those documents clearly show that all the appellru1"~.:: showed their domicile as being Dar.es Salaaina There is no evidence on record to show that they or a:ny of them ch,,.m.ged domicile •. The mere fact that Clause 6.3 of the Volunte.ry Agreement Provided for repatriation expenses on termination· of the contract for service does not help the appellarits at all: that Clause was intended to cover respondent's employees whose domicile was outside :Jar es Salaam at the time of their engagement a For the .:.,e re b.Sons, I find no merit in this a.ppe,:11. The same is hereby dismi?sed with costs to the respondent,. JUDGE ·Judgment delivered in Court this 30th dey of March, 1998 in the abse·rice of the parties. B.. D. CtlIPETA JUDGE 30/3L1998