jackson mwendi vs agakhan education services 2020 tzhcld 3757 30 november 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA LABOUR DIVISION AT DAR ES SALAAM MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 753 OF 2019 JACKSON M WEN DI..................................................... APPLICANT VERSUS AGAKHAN EDUCATION SERVICE.......................... RESPONDENT RULING Date of last Order: 18/11/2020 Date of Ruling: 30/11/2020 Z.G.Muruke, J. Applicant filed present application for extension of time to file revision, reason are explained in paragraph 1.4 and 2.1 of affidavit sworn by Jackson Mwendi (the applicant) in essence his complaint from CMA to this court is right to be heard of his case on merits. Respondent filed counter affidavit sworn by Ms. Glory Ngassa respondent human resource manager to object prayers by applicant. On the hearing date applicant was in person while respondent was represented by Godfrey Ngasa holding brief of Daniel Ngudungi. Hearing was ordered to be by way of written submission. Both parties submitted along lines the affidavit. In short applicant seriously complained his right to be heard being infringed by arbitrator who dismissed his case for being out of time, wrongly. In essence he insisted right to be heard on an intended revision. i Having heard both parties submission, it is clear that, applicant has been strangling to be heard since Commission for Mediation and Arbitration, Right to be heard is one of the basic principles in administration of justice. Right to be heard is one of fundamental principals of natural justice, failure of which vitiate proceedings. Rule of natural justice states that no man should be condemned unheard and, indeed both sides should be heard unless one side chooses not to. It is a basic law that, no one should be condemned to a judgment passed against him without being afforded a chance of being heard. The right to be heard is a value right and it would offend all notions of justice if the rights of a part were to be prejudiced or affected without the party being afforded an opportunity to be heard. To the best of my understanding, the Principles of natural justice should always be dispensed by the court, that is both parties must be heard on the application before a final decision. Failing which there is miscarriage of justice as it is wrong for the judge to impose an order on the parties and such order cannot be allowed to stand. Implicit in the concept of fair adjudication lie cardinal principles namely that no man shall be condemned unheard. Principles of natural justice must be observed by the court save where their application is excluded expressly or by necessary implication. It is un-procedural for a court to give judgment against the defendant without giving him an opportunity of being heard. Every judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal must apply the fundamental principles of natural justice and natural justice will 2 not allow a person to be jeopardized in his person or pocket without giving him an opportunity of appearing and putting forward his case. The issue of denial of the right to a hearing is a point of law which underline the proceedings the effect of which is to render a proceeding a nullity. In the case of Ridge Vs. Baldwin [1963] 2 All ER 66, it was insisted that the consequence of the failure to observe the rules of natural justice is to render the decision void and not voidable. Official of the court must comply with the rules of natural justice when exercising judicial functions. Right to be heard was insisted in the case of Kijakazi Mbegu and five others Vs. Ramadhani Mbegu [1999] TLR 174. Applicant basic right to be heard will be curtailed if, is not granted extension sought. Respondent will not be prejudiced as his right to be heard will steel be waiting. Accordingly orders sought in Misc application number 753/2019 for extension of time file revision is granted. Intended Revision to be filed within 30 days from today. JUDGE 30/11/2020 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA LABOUR DIVISION AT DAR ES SALAAM MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 753 OF 2019 JACKSON MWENDI .................................................... APPLICANT VERSUS AGAKHAN EDUCATION SERVICE............................... RESPONDENT Date: 30/11/2020 Coram: Hon. S.R. Ding'ohi, DR. Applicant: Present in person For Applicant: Respondent: Mr. Elia Mwingira, Advocate For Respondent: CC: Halima Court: Ruling delivered this 30th day of November, 2020. ( > S.R. Ding'ohi ( j DEPUTY REGISTRAR 30/11/2020