APPLICATION NO

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA LABOUR DIVISION AT DAR ES SALAAM APPLICATION NO. 000002870 OF 2024 CASE REFERENCE NO. 20240214000002870 JACQUELINE A SW EETBERT .............................. .............. APPLICANT VERSUS UNITED BANK FOR AFR ICA ( U B A ) ................... ...........RESPONDENT RULING OPIYO, 3. This is an application for extension of time to allow the applicant to file revision against an award by the CM A in labour Dispute No. CMA/DSM/ILA/305/202, Hon. U.N. Mpulla dated 23rd October 2023. The application is supported with the affidavit of Elisa Jonas Mndeme, the advocate for the applicant. The application was argued by way or written submissions. In the application, the applicant is represented by Elisa Jonas Mndeme and respondent by Erene Swai, learned counsels. In support of the application Mr. Mndeme submitted that, that the applicant had filed Revision application through electronic filing system (ECMS) on 30th November, 2023 that was well within time against the award that was delivered on 23/10/2023. The application was admitted through admission No. 00088702 as per annexture TC 8 to the affidavit. However, the admitted application w as later returned for same rectification but he failed to do the said rectification as the system could not allow. They made several physical follow-ups on way forward but the same could not materialize. He therefore argued that, in the circumstances, the applicant is excused from counting for each day of delay that was occasioned by technical delay originating from the court electronic filing system that was well beyond the applicant's control. He contended that, the said Revision application is still pending in the electronic case management system to the time of filing this application and the applicant has failed to do any of the rectifications required. He therefore, prayed for his prayer to be granted as the day has not been caused by applicant's negligence. He cited Misc. Labour Application No. 3877 of 2024; Constantine Gedalia vs Kagera Sugar Limited to substantiate his argum ents. On illegality reasons, he submitted that the award is illegal as there were no reasons for applicant's termination and proper procedures were not followed. Also, that, the arbitrator failed to take into account all the factors and proof of applicant's business loss that was occasioned by the unfair termination. He thus argued that as the ground of illegality alone is sufficient to warrant extension of time, he prayed for the application to be granted on the above basis. The application is strongly objected to by the respondents through their counter affidavit and submissions in reply. The counsel for the respondent was quick to counter argue against the applicant's counsel submissions by starting with adapting the counter affidavit sworn by Stella Shangali, respondent's Principal officer. She then proceeded to submit that no good cause has been shown by the Applicant to deserve extension of time and pray that this application be dismissed. The reason for his argum ent is that the attached extract does not provide any details that prove that the Applicant could not rectify the revision application on time through the eCase Management System. Annexure TC-8 to the Applicant's Affidavit only shows the details of the revision application and the date of submission. However, there was no proof that the eCase M anagem ent System was unstable and could not allow such rectification. Further that, the applicant's statement that she made physical follow ups with the registry are mere arguments from the bar as there is no any letter of confirmation from the registry showing that the applicant made a follow up to rectify the revision application without success. That, assuming the applicant did made a follow ups she challenged the assumption that from 30 November 2023 to 6th February 2024 the Court Registry did not admit any court docum ents electronically, the way the applicant want this court to believe. She argued against that contention for being unrealistic. She therefore argued that, if there was a technical error, the Applicant ought to have been proactive and aggressive enough to ensure the document is corrected and tim ely admitted. In the contrary, she was negligent to follow up with the Registrar to the excusable extent. The counsel continued to submit that, Rule 56(1) of the Labour Court Rules, G.N. No. 106 of 2007 vests the Court with discretion to extend time for institution of revision where it is established that the delay was with good cause. But, the applicant had additional 2 days to make a follow up and ensure that the revision application was rectified within time, but did not do so and waited for 66 days to file an application for extension of time, that is from 2nd December 2023 to 6th February 2024. She submitted that in the Misc. Labour Application No. 3877 of 2024; Constantine Gedalia vs Kagera Sugar Limited cited by the Applicant is distinguished, because in that case, the Court observed that there was a technical delay as the original appeal was found to be incompetent, and the Applicant was following up on copies of the ruling. In this case however, the revision application was not found to be incom petent rather the Applicant failed to rectify the revision application online. And for all of that time, he has failed to account for as to why she waited for 66 days to file an application for extension of time and not immediately after the expiry of time. She further argued that the Applicant has not supplied sufficient proof on record to support that she was making follow-ups, with the registry. He therefore cited the case of Lyamuya Construction Co. Ltd vs Board of Registered Trustees of Young W om en Association of Tanzania, Civil. Application No. 2 of 2010 where Hon. IMassati JA, to urge the court to dismiss the application as the applicant failed to account for each day of On the illegality the respondent argued that the same is not on the face of the record for the court to consider it, the same will be determined in the substantive revision. Rival parties' submission has been duly considered. In an application for extension of time as per rule 56(1) of Labour Court Rules w hat is paramount for consideration is the sufficiency of the reasons for one's delay to take the necessary action for which extension of time is prayed for. In this matter, the applicant im putes her delay to technical delay by submitting that, the cause for his delay is a result of tim e lost when he was pursuing matters relating to this case in court as a result of e filing fault. As a matter of general principle, it is in the discretion of the court to grant extension of time. However, that discretion is judicial, and so, it must be exercised according to the rules of reason and justice, and not arbitrarily. The court has formulated a number of guidelines in exercising the said discretion; these include; applicant accounting for all the period of delay, the delay should not be inordinate, the applicant must show diligence, and not apathy, negligence or sloppiness in the prosecution of the action that he intends to take and lastly, existence of other sufficient reasons such as the existence of a point of law of sufficient importance; such as the illegality of the decision sought to be challenged. The principles were well elaborated in the case of Lyamuya Construction Co. Ltd vs Board of Registered of Young W om en's Christian Association of Tanzania (supra). From the digital records, the present application was filed on 14th February 2024, which is more than 60 days from the purported date of rejection of the revision application. From his submission, there is no a single paragraph that he had accounted for the over 60 days between rejection of the revision application to the date of filing the current application for extension of time to refile the said revision out of time. In my considered view, over 60 days makes an inordinate delay to be ignored. That means, the applicant's claimed diligence on his part has not been shown in his entire submission. Therefore, as the applicants have failed to provide sufficient proof of the technical error resulting from the eCase Management system that could not be rectified for over two months, it is held that he inordinately delayed in filing this application and his inaction is purely negligence and far from technical delay he attributed it with. On the ground of illegality alleged by the applicant, the same is not on the face of records as correctly argued by the respondents' counsel. The gist of applicant's explanation on the existence of illegality goes to the merits of the application. It therefore, incapable of being determined in an application for extension of time. That being said, the application fails for lack of merits as both reasons advanced by the applicant are not sufficient to warrant extension of time. The application is therefore dismissed. Being a labour matter, I make no order as to costs.