20131203 TZHC Arusha1

I i I IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA LABOUR DIVISION l , !. AT ARUSHA LABOUR DISPUTE NO. 1 OF 2012 HARUN I. MSANGI .................................................... APPLICANT VERSUS TROPICAL PESTICIDES RESEARCH INSTITUTE .............. RESPONDENT ! i RULING ON THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION 20/11/2013 & 03/12/2013 S. A. N. WAMBURA, J. 1 1: . I : Before hearing of this application took off the respondents Tropical Pesticides Research Institute filed three grounds of preliminary objection to the effect that:- 1. The complaint is time barred and the complainant has not sought nor I ·, has been granted ex'tension of time. 2. The matter is res sub - Judice because there is a similar matter pending before the Court of Appeal. 3. The complainant has contravened the procedure for instituting the matter by not referri!Jg it to the Commissioner for Labour first. I ; I I ' At the hearing of the preliminary objection Mr. Msangi appeared in person while Mr. Mushi Advocate appeared for the respondents. 1 ! i ' I will begin by resolving the last ground. Thereafter the first ground and lastly the second ground. 1. Has this complaint been properly filed in Court? ' ! ! Whereas Mr. Mushi has alleged that the dispute has not complied to the mandatory procedures of filing such complaints as provided for under Rule 10 (1) of the Labour Institutions (Mediation and Arbitration) Rules of 2007, Mr. Msangi has argued that the said provisions are in applicable. ! That the application has ~roperly been filed by complying to the repealed 1 law. He did not tell us the provision which allows him to use such repealed . laws. Yet it is stated in the complaint that the provisions upon which the . proceedings are instituted are Section 51 of the Labour Institutions Act and Section 21 of the Law of Limitation Act. i . i ! i . : The normal procedure in filing applications which were in force by the time the new laws came into operation are elaborated in Paragraphs 6 to 12 of the 3rd Schedule of Employment and Labour Relations Act. Having gone through the said provisions, I believe they have not been complied with. 1 ' l. In the circumstances, I find that the complaint was not been properly filed in Court as the required procedures were not adhered to. I thus do uphold the third ground raised in the preliminary objection. 2 i I ~ ! I I • 2. Has the complaint been filed in time? Mr. Msangi concedes that the cause of action arose sometime in 1996. He went on to give~ brief historical background of the matter which was filed both at the Industrial Court and also at the High Court. He alleged he was advised to withdraw the matter at ICT. However .· the matter at the High Court was struck out for want of jurisdiction in trade disputes. That the appeal: to the Court of Appeal was in respect of the , . ' I prayers for defamation only. That was why he filed the matter in this court in respect of unlawful termination. It was his submission that the complaint is thus not time barred as under the Law of Limitation Act the bona fide time spent resolving the i ' matter in a wrong Court is !excluded. As argued by Mr. Mushi, Mr. Msangi did not however cite the respective provision. The fact that Mr. Msangi concedes that the cause of action arose in 1996 and yvent on to e~p,ain that long_ route the matter took to find its way into the Labour Court, means the complaint is time barred and he had to seek extension of time to file this application. What has been submitted would be good grounds in seeking such an extension. In fact even under the Law of Limitation Act time would seize to run 60 days after the matter was struck. out at the Hi9h court and not three years. 1 : In the circumstances, I do find that the matter has been filed out of time and accordingly sustain the first ground of the preliminary objection. 3 ! i ' I ii Having upheld the two grounds, I believe I have no reason to look into the second ground. The complaint is accordingly struck out. I make no I orders to costs. ! i 5.A.N_Q✓,a£ura ciu~GE /03/12/2013 I' I ! 4 I !