HUGHES MOTORS 2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA [ARUSHA SUB- REGISTRY] AT ARUSHA CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3426 OF 2025 (Arising from Execution No. 42 of2023 of High Court of Tanzania, original Dispute No. CMA/ARS/ARB/168/2016) HUGHES MOTORS (TANZANIA LIMITED)..................................... APPLICANT VERSUS KIRAMA URIO............................................................................ RESPONDENT RULING 04/03 & 10/03/2025 I.C. MUGETA, J; In the course of executing its mandate under the Labour Curt Rules, GN 106/2007, this Court (E. Mrema, DR) has issued warrant of attachment against the applicant's properties. The applicant is aggrieved by the attachment. She has applied for orders of stay of execution. The application is made under Order XXI Rule 24 (1) (2) (3), 68 (1) (2), (3), Rule 27 and Order XXXIX Rule 5 (i) (ii) and Sections 68 and 95 of the Civil Procedure Code [Cap 33 R.E. 2019] (the CPC). The respondent has raised two points of preliminary objection. Firstly, that the application is irregular for being made under the CPC. That in labour matters, jurisdiction for stay of execution is provided under 1 section 91 (3) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act (Cap 366 R.E. 2019] and Rule 24 of the Labour Court Rules, G.N. 106/2007. Counsel for the respondent replied that this court can issue stay orders under Order XXI Rule 24. I do not agree with counsel for the applicant. Order XXI Rule 24 deals with transferred decrees. There is no transferred decree in this case. As argued by Farida Juma, personal representative for the applicant, this court can issue stay orders under section 91 (3) of Cap 366. However, such jurisdiction can be exercised pending determination of the application for revision of the award of the CMA. There is no application for revision of the arbitral award which has been filed or is pending before this court. What has been filed is an application for revision of orders of the Deputy Registrar on alleged irregularities in the execution process. Therefore, section 91(3) of Cap 366 and rule 24 of the Labour Court Rules which Miss Farida believes would have been the enabling provisions for this application are also inapplicable. In fact, there is no provision of law which provides for an avenue for a judge to order stay of execution of a decision made by the Deputy Registrar in the scheme of order of things under the labour court laws. Perhaps that is the reason the counsel for the applicant has resorted to the provisions of the CPC. That course is permissible under rule 55 (1) of the Labour Court Rules. I was prepared to proceed with the application under the provision of the CPC and overrule the objection but for the fact that the application for revision No. 3370/2025 upon which this application is premised has been struck out for incompetency. That course brings this application to natural and automatic death. Orders for stay of execution are issued pending determination of something. There is nothing to determine between the parties which is pending before this court. Consequently, this application is struck out. No orders as to costs as this is a labour matter. I** 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 respondent and Farida Juma, Personal Representative for the respondent. Sgd: I.C. MUGETA JUDGE 10/03/2025 3