hussein rajab omary and another vs euro cables ltd 2021 tzhcld 56 9 machi 2021
Applicants were only entitled to payment for the remaining days of their fixed-term contracts after lawful notice; no further compensation was warranted as per contract and law.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- hussein rajab omary and another vs euro cables ltd 2021 tzhcld 56 9 machi 2021
- Parties
- Applicant: Hussein Rajabu Omary; Applicant: Mohamed Rajabu; Respondent: Euro Cables Limited
- Court
- TANZLII
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 1 January 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Labour Revision / Judgment
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Termination of Employment, Fixed Term Contracts, Notice Period, Compensation for Unfair Termination
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Hussein Rajabu Omary
Applicant
Mohamed Rajabu
Applicant
Euro Cables Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Labour Revision / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants were entitled to additional compensation beyond payment for remaining contract days after early termination of fixed-term contracts
Ratio Decidendi
Applicants were only entitled to payment for the remaining days of their fixed-term contracts after lawful notice; no further compensation was warranted as per contract and law.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- Revision application is dismissed
- Award of payment for remaining contract days is upheld
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
JAMUHURI YA MUUNGANO WA TANZANIA MAHAKAMA YA TANZANIA MAHAKAMA KUU DIVISHENI YA KAZI KANDAYA DARES SALAAM MAOMBI YA MAREJEO NA, 528 OF 2019 BAINAYA HUSSEIN RAJABU OMARY AND ANOTHER.........MLAUAMIKAJI DHIDI YA EURO CABLES LIMITED.............. , MLALAMIKIWA UAMUZI Tarehe ya mwisho ya Amri: 26/02/2021 Tarehe ya Uamuzi: 09/03/2021 Z.G.Muruke, J. Hussein Rajab aliajiriwa tarehe'2*7/06/2016 hadi tarehe 26/09/2016 kwa kipindi cha miezi (3) mitatu^n^Mohamed Rajabu aliajiriwa kuanzia tarehe 24/04/2016 nadiA 23^^2016 kwa miezi (3) mitatu. Tarehe 21/07/2016, mjibu mWnbiSliwajulisha kuwa ajira itakoma kwa kuwa na hali ngumu ya^kifedha\\/Valeta maombi hawakuridhika, walifungua madai Tume ya Usuluhishi. na*Maamuzi (CMA) wakidai kila mojawapo kulipwa Shs. 3,718,04.mikiwa i> (i)%.^«lotisi baada ya mshahara Shs. 150,000/= (ii) Likizo Shs. 750,000/= (iii) Fidia ya mshahara wa miezi 12 Shs. 1,809,000/= (iv) Malipo ya kiinua mgongo Shs. 278,846/= (v) Malipo ya masaa ya ziada Shs. 739,200/= i Baada ya majibizano ya pande mbili, tume ilisikiliza shauri na hatimaye baadhi madai yao yalikubalika na kulipwa kama ifuatavyo; Hussein Rajabu siku zilizobaki kabla ya mkataba kwisha ni 52 = 5,000 x 52 = 260,000 Mohamed Ramadhani siku zilizobaki ni 2= 5,000 x 2 = 10» Uamuzi huo haukuwaridhisha waleta maombi, wameletaX marejeo, wakilalamikia tume kutowalipa malipo ya fldia ya kusitishafmkatabaz «£* Sei ZVoSi Kesi ilisikilizwa kwa njia ya maandishi, kuwezes’h|bwaleta maombi ambao, walikuwa wenyewe kupata msaada^ra^i^eria. Mjibu maombi aliwakilishwa na wakili msomi Victoria^Mgonjasr Kumbukumbu za Mahakama zinaonyesha kuwa waleta^maombizwameleta maelezo yao (submissions), lakini wakili wa rrijlbu. maombi hajawakilisha na hakuna maelezo yoyote. Mahakama itaziixjatia maelezo ya waleta maombi pamoja na kumbukumbu ziliz@po,a Hakuna ubishi^kuw/aWSIeta maombi walikuwa na mikataba ya miezi mitatu, ambayojlisi^isKw^kabla ya kuisha kwa sababu za kiuchimi za mjibu maombi. Kumbukurnbu>mikataba ya waleta maombi inaonyesha walikuwa wakilipw^kwa^ma Shs. 5,000 kwa siku, na walikuwa wakilipwa kwa kila sikl^ljuj^wu ni kwamba kabla ya kumuachisha kazi mfanyakazi anayelipwa kwa siku unampa notisi ya siku nne. 2 Mwajiri (mjibu maombi) alifuata utaratibu. Tarehe 21/07/2016 alimuandikia Hussein Rajabu kama ifuatavyo:- Yah: Kuachishwa Kazi Rejea kichwa cha habari Uongozi wa Kampuni unakujulisha kuwa kutokana na kupungua Jcwa.^blashara imetulazimu kukuachisha kazi kuanzia tarehe 21/07/2016 ili kuondokana^ na malumbano yasiyo ya mslngi pale malipo yako yatakapo kosekana. Kwa mujibu wa mkataba wako wa kazi kifunguxcna%9^:ha sheria ya kazi malipo yako ni; Tafadhali kabidhi mail yajofisi uliypnayo kwa mkuu wako wa kazi mara upatapo barua hii. Tui^akutakia kila la kheri popote ulipo. ... u r JU - • - . kutwa, alistahilKmaiipcrya siku nne badala ya notisi, na malipo ya siku zilizobakk ambazo^ kukumbuku zinaonyesha alilipwa kiasi cha Shs. 45®0O/^^5» Zilikuwa^ni siku 7 mshahara 7x5,000 = 35 Siku zilizobaki 2 2x 5,000 = 10 Kwa upande wa Hussein Rajab mkataba wake ulikuwa haujaisha, kwani ulitakiwa kuisha tarehe 27/09/2016. Na notisi ni ya tarehe 21/07/2016. Notisi ilimjulisha kuwa muajiri hatoendelea na mkataba. Hivyo 3 akalipwa mshahara wa siku 52 zilizobaki ambao ni 52x5,000 sawa sawa na 260,000 zilizoamuliwa na Tume. Kwa ushahidi wa Hussein Rajabu na Mohamedi Ramadhani ni wazi kwamba mikataba yao ni ya miezi mitatu. Hawakustahili madai mengi waliyodai, kwa kuwa ni maelewano yao na mujibu maombi (Mkataba). Tume ilitoa amri kuwa waleta maombi walipwe siku zilizobaki kabla ya mkataba kwisha, Mahakama hiLJmeona ni sawasawa. w * Hivyo, basi hakuna sababu ya kutofautiana^qa^am^zj|;wa Tume. (CMA) maombi ya marejeo hayana mashiko yanatupiliwehmbali. Z.G.Muruke 09/03/2021 4