HUGHES MOTORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA [ARUSHA SUB- REGISTRY] AT ARUSHA REVISION APPLICATION NO. 3370 OF 2025 (Arising from Execution No. 42 of2023 of the High Court of Tanzania before Hon. E. Mrema, Deputy Registrar original Dispute No. CMA/ARS/ARB/168/2016 of CMA Arusha before Hon. L. Stepheno, Arbitrator) HUGHES MOTORS (TANZANIA LIMITED)..................................... APPLICANT VERSUS KIRAMA URIO......................................................... RESPONDENT RULING 04/03 & 10/03/2025 I.C. MUGETA, J; The applicant applies for revision of the orders of the Deputy Registrar in execution No. 42 of 2023. The grievances concern the process of execution and attachment of her motor vehicles registration numbers T.399 DRL, Mazda, T.695 DJY Suzuki, T.898 DFT, Mazda pick up and T.548 DKS Man Truck. The complaints are firstly, that the motor vehicles were attached before the expiry of the 14 days notice and secondly, that the hearing of the execution application for execution is tainted. 1 The respondent has raised two objections. Firstly, that the decision of the Deputy Registrar cannot be challenged by revision and secondly, that the application is time barred. The application is made under rule 24 (1), 2(a) (b) (c) (d) (e), 3(a) (b) (c) (d), and (2) of the Labour Court Rules, G.N. 106 OF 2007. In her submissions to support the objection, Farida Juma, Personal Representative (PR) for the respondent, pointed out that the above provisions concern application for revision to challenge the decision of the CMA not Deputy Registrars. She submitted that under rule 26 (1) of G.N. 106/2007, orders passed by the Deputy Registrar can only be challenged by review not revision. She went further by citing section 78 (1) (b) of the Civil Procedure Code [Cap 33 R.E. 2019] to buttress her argument that challenging a decision in the same court goes by way of review. Therefore, since the Deputy Registrar sits in the High Court, his/her orders cannot be challenged by revision. She further argued that in terms of rule 26 (8) of the Labour Court Rules, G.N. 106/2007, this application ought to have been made within 15 days. In reply, Julius Karata, learned advocate argued that rule 26 (8) of the G.N. 106/2007 has no bearing on the issue before the court as its with 2 supply of records. I agree with the learned counsel's observation. That law concerns amendment of records. On review or revision, counsel for the applicant took the view that in making decisions, the Deputy Registrar does not sit as High Court because he/she is not a judge. He is just an executing officer. Therefore, his/her decision can be challenged by revision. He cited the case of Duncan Shili Nkya & Kiwango Security Co. Ltd V Oysterbay Hospital Co. Ltd, (Reference No. 26/2022) [2022] TZH ChandD 12690 (30 November 2022) (TANZLII) and Finca Microfinance Bank V Vedastus Chunu, Revision No. 23/2020, High Court - Shinyanga (unreported) to support his position. Indeed, Deputy Registrars do not sit in the High Court as judges. It is also a fact that in labour matters they are executing officer under section 54 of the Labour Institutions Act [Cap. 300 R.E 2019] as repealed and replaced by the Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Act No.2) Act 2020. However, their decisions are decisions of the High Court. My brother Justice Lusungu took that position in Duncan Shili Nkya's case (supra) and I agree with that position. On that account, a decision by a Deputy Registrar cannot be challenged in the High Court by way of 3 In Francisca Kokuganywa Alfred V Musa Saleh & Another, Civil Application No. 270/17 of 2022, Court of Appeal (DSM) (unreported), it was held that unless it is a decision in his/her capacity as taxing master in terms of Order 7 (1) and (2) of the Advocates Renumeration Order, GN 264/2015, the decision of the Deputy Registrar is challengeable by way of appeal to the Court of Appeal. The exception is on the review and reference jurisdiction when the law so states. Mr. Karata impressed on this court to get inspiration from the decision in the case of Finca Microfinance Bank (supra) where this court revised the decision of the Deputy Registrar on account of material irregularities. While I agree that this court in the said case took that course, I cannot follow it to exercise a jurisdiction which does not exist. I hold a firm view that the revision jurisdiction under section 91 of Cap 366 R.E. 2019 and rule 28 of GN 106/2007 does not cover decisions passed by Deputy Registrars. I understand, the Duncan Shili Nkya and Francis Kokuganywa cases (supra) concerned civil cases of land nature. This is a labour case but, in my view, the principle applies. I hold that view because revisional jurisdiction, like appellate jurisdiction, is conferred by law. Both the G.N. 106/2007 and the Employment of Labour Relations Act [Cap 366 R.E. 4 2019] has no provisions to the effect that a decision of the Deputy Registrar can be challenged by way of revision to a judge of the High Court. Consequently, I uphold the objection on the competency of the application. I hold that the application is incompetently before this court. For that incompetency, it is not worthwhile to consider whether it was filed in time. The objection is upheld and stands truck out. No orders as to costs since this is a labour dispute. I.C. MUGETA JUDGE 10/03/2025 Court: Ruling delivered in chambers in the presence of Julius Karata, Advocate for the Applicant and in the absence of the applicant and in the presence respondent and Farida Juma, Personal Representative for the respondent. Sgd: I.C. MUGETA JUDGE 10/03/2025 5