19890622 TZHC Dar es Salaam2
- Citation
- 19890622 TZHC Dar es Salaam2
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 22 June 1989
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 22 June 1989
- Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The District Court had jurisdiction because the premises were service tenancy property of a parastatal organization, and JUWATA lacked authority to reinstate the appellant; thus, the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.
Court disposition
appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Appellant to pay costs
02
Material facts
Parties
Hassani Seseme
Appellant Counsel: Mr. RahimTANESCO
Respondent Counsel: Mr. HseleleAmounts and remedies
- Transfer and Disturbance Allowances Paid: TZS 32,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the District Court had jurisdiction to hear the suit regarding premises allocated to an employee by a parastatal organization
- 02
Whether the appellant was unlawfully dismissed and entitled to reinstatement
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The District Court lacked jurisdiction as the matter falls under the Rent Restriction Act and should be heard by the Regional Housing Tribunal. The appellant was unlawfully dismissed and should be considered an employee entitled to reinstatement.
- Respondent
- The District Court had full jurisdiction because the premises are property of TANESCO and the appellant's tenancy was merely service tenancy, falling outside the Regional Housing Tribunal's jurisdiction. JUWATA has no power to reinstate dismissed employees.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 2(1)(a), Rent Restriction Act, 1984
Premises owned by government, parastatal organizations, or local authorities and used by employees are excluded from Regional Housing Tribunal jurisdiction under Section 2(1)(a) of the Rent Restriction Act, 1984.
- 02
Security of Employment Act, 1967
JUWATA cannot reinstate dismissed employees; only Conciliation Board or Permanent Labour Tribunal have such power under the Security of Employment Act, 1967.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The District Court had jurisdiction because the premises were service tenancy property of a parastatal organization, and JUWATA lacked authority to reinstate the appellant; thus, the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.
Court disposition
appeal dismissed with costs
- Appeal dismissed
- Appellant to pay costs
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 22 June 1989
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
TZHC
Judgment· 22 June 1989
(" TH:S UITITED REPUBLIC OF TJHTZlllTIA ------------,---- 'II .. mt·. t AT ......DAR ___
IH THE HIGH COURT OF TAITZAITIA ....., ES SALAAM ;;.;;.;;..,_ .. .. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 23 OF 1988 HASSANI SESEME o •· • • APPELLANT TANESCO • o • • • • • RESPOJ:-IDENT J U D. g M .~11...1--!. T.his is an appeal l.odged by lV.ir. Hassa11.i Sesentl the. appGllant thrcu.;~: th·) c.:::rvices of Mr. Rahim lean.1.ed counsel £or~.· the appellant· aga:!.not the ciecisioi1. of' Morogoro District Court. ordering him to vacate the au.it 1:remiseqo Briefly the :facts 0£ tl.. e cas(.;) are that the appellant was an · employee of' T.ANESCO stationed at Morogoro and he has been wor:p.ng with the respondent cor:.1pa.ny f'or 18 yearo. On 12/2/88 the appellant wa.s, sum;;1arily d:i.smiasecl :from his employment by the, r.espono.ent Company. Befor,:-i hi.o disr.iissal :from employment, !c..o was an Assistant Regional L ·:igineer anc: given house No.J61 in Itigurunyer.:ibe area in Morog,. :.... o p·--.-:-:. the house belongs to his . " er.:1ployer TANESCO - F""'·"' · .'..., ...i.s disr:rl.ssal :from er;1ployment, the appeJ.lant ·i1as J.;:..• ..... _.1,....,;,:'orred ·.;o Mafia by his employer as en Area Mar.ager and later he wao t:(ans:ferz-etl to Htera. For these tHo tre.ns:fers he was paid cast-. ohs .32 ,ooo/= as tranf'er an.cl di~tur1.J2.ncQ··. · allowanc·es and that ,·ras on 7/2/88. As e. result o:f these transf.cz:s,, the Reginnal Manager of' TJiiTESCO i;:1 Morogoro wrote a letter to the
appellant requeotinG J:..ii:1 to ,,,vacate the house wl1ioh was allocated to him by his c .. 1ployer but the appellant re:f'used to C:.Q.. so hence the present sui•; was fatl.tiated by the appellant. Mr. Rahim learned Cc ms el for the appellant a,dvanoed i'two grounds o:f appea 1. tr 3 :fir::; t · ground, :Mr• Rahi1~ subr:1i t'ted t:~a t In tne lower trial District ~ou~t h~d no jurisdiction to tcy the. ,... ouit as the L-:atter f'a11s ,oiely within tho perview o:f the Rent Restriction Act 198~,~ t~'l.. the R0cional Houzing Tribunal ..-,ras the pi--oper tribtma.i ·..,;...) ·i:;. f it. In the second grour..d, r-'1...r. Ra.him learned Cot.U:¥3e.l for th.0 appellant contended that tI:.e appelle.nt 11a6 un lawfully disr.tl.s::.00. :from his employment and tnat be should still be considered as an employee of the Respondent Cor.ipany and thus was decided by Ju.IA.TA" As regards the :firot ground of appeal, I am quite i11. ~gree- ment with the contention giv0n by M:i.--. Hselele learned Counsel :for the respondent that the trial Distr.i~t Court had full juris~ictio~ to adjudicate the case and t::::ts.·{e due to the :fact that tl1e suit pre1~1ises one the properties o.f 'l'AITESCO and the appellant• s te:-.12:1cy in the premiseo was □ erely oe:..--vice tenancy end in accor~anoe w:i. t:,. the provisions of' Section 2 (1) (a) of' the Rent Restriction Act, 1984 t!-ie Regional Housing
Tribunel h2s no jurisdiction to hear cases of proms es which aro t:i:!e p1:o:,erties of the Goverru:10nt; :;?arc>,statal orsanizations; looal. authority where such prcqiocs 2:.."0 used by or are for use ·by er:J.yloyces o-.t t1:ic Govcrnnent, the. parastatal organization and t~1e loccl authority. As regardo tho secono. g-r·ounC:. o:f appeal., I am only oay that JU'rJATA has no power .to rci11stnt0 an c1;iploy0e who has been disain:30d :from e □ployment by his er:1pl.::iyor. I:f Juwata is not satisfied wit:1 an order of' dismissing an enployee, it has two causes to fol:Lo,·r- viz:- a) to take _th.0 ~mtter bef'oro a conciliation Board in accordance with the t3Gcurity of Er.iploy"Qent Act.196/-:, o:.."' b) to take the matter. before Perr,mnent Labour 'l'ribu;:121. , Thase two Organ are tl,.e Ol"?.OS which I'lave power to order. reinst2te- ment of dismissed ecployees end not otherwise. From tbe record, there is no such an order :fro,·.1 any of' t:-icse two organs• The District C-ourt therefore .outed rightly in dioregording t!-ie order given by JtfiJATA in favour of t:'1c appellant. Having so said, I 00"~10 to the ooncl.usio11 that this ap1.:ioal l1.a.o no werit and i t is acco1."d:ingl.y d.is::1issed with costs. c. G. MTENGA
JUDGE 227s7·--1-9n__9_ Delivered in Chambers in the preso?1oe o-:f both Counsel this 22:nci. day of June, 1909. C ·• G • MTENG.A J'"tJDGE 2276Tl9s9 Certified true copy o:f tbe
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.