20131203 TZHC Arusha2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA I 1 i LABOUR DIVISION

ATARUSHA REVIEW NO. 1 OF 2012 HUMPHREY MALE ........... -. ...................................... ~ APPLICANT i I i VERSUS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BONITE BOTTLERS LTD .......... RESPONDENT

RULING ON PRELIMINARY OBJECTION I ' ' I I' 20/11/2013 & 03/12/2013' S. A. N. WAMBURA, J. This ruling is in respect of a preliminary objection raised by the respondents the Managing Director Bonite Bottlers Ltd to the effect that :- 1 ; ; 1. That the applicant's notice of review.is hopelessly time barred. 2~ That this hon_ou~able Court is improperly moved, as the notice of review contravenes Rule 27 sub rules (5) and (7) of the Labour Court Rules GN No. 106/2007. ! i I I ' Having heard submissions of Mr. Kimaay Advocate for the respondent and Mr. Mjemah for the applicant HUMPHREY MALE on grounds for and against the preliminary objection, I will respond to the issues in a reverse manner .. 1 : ! I 1. Has this Court been properly moved? ' ' ! i • It is a rule of practice that reviews have to be in conformity with the provisions of Rule 27 (1) and (5) of the Labour Court Rules, 2007. This application has not complied to Rule 27 (1) and (2) of these Rules which provide for the contents within which this application has to be ' i i ' : made. In the case of Edward Bachwa and 3 others Vs. The Attorney General and another, Civil Application No. 128 of 2008/ the court held that wrong citation of the law, section, subsections and /or paragraphs of the law or non-citation of the law will not move the court to do what it is asked and readers the app,lication incompetent. The same was held

in number of cases such as N.B.C Vs. Sadrudin Meghji, Civil Application No. 20 of 1997, China Henan International ' Co-operation Group Vs. Salvand K.A. Rwegasira, Civil Reference No. 22 of 2005 and A1:1tony J. Tesha Vs. Anitha Tesha, Civil Appeal No. 10/2003 to mention just a; few. ' ' ! ! ' I have also noted that the applicant cited the Law of Limitation Act. As rightly submitted by Mr. Kimaay, this Court has its own Rules which provide for procedures to be followed. Other laws can only be applied where there is a lacuna in the Labour Laws. This is provided for under Rule 55 of the Labour Court Rules. Therefore the provisions of the Law of Limitation Act are in applicable as provlded for under Section 43 (f) of the said Act and were improperly cited. I thus uphold the 2nd ground of the preliminary objection. ! I 2 • I 2. Was the notice of review hopelessly time barred? Rule 27 (1) of the Labour Court Rules provides that reviews shall be instituted by filing a notice of review to the Registrar within fifteen (15) days. This ·application was lfiled on 04/10/2012 while the ruling which is to be reviewed was issued on 04/09/2012. This was about one month from the date when the order was issued. It was definitely out of time as no leave was sought to file the application out of time. In the case of Zayumba Abeid Hussein A. Akida & Others Vs. , ' I . Tanzania Ports Authority, Civil

Appeal No.18/2009 the Court held that in the absence of leave applied for and granted the appeal is incompetent and accordingly striked it out. I do agree with Mr. Kimaay that this application was filed out of the i prescribed time as provided for by the law. It is therefore incompetent I thus uphold the first ground of the preliminary objection as well. Having said so I herein sustain t~e preliminary objection raised and accordingly strike out the matter. I make no order as to costs. i ·s.A.N. QNh:l.Qura 1 '· '~DGE 03/l2f2J) 13 ! I j I