MISC NO 4685 OF 2025 JOHN MFUNGO MAJURA VRS COTEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED 0001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

LABOUR DIVISION AT PAR-ES-SALAAM MISC. LABOUR APPLICATION NO. 4685 OF 2025 CASE REFERENCE NO. 202503031000004685 JOHN MFUNGO MAJURA..............................................................................APPLICANT

VERSUS COTEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED................................................................. RESPONDENT

RULING Date of last Order: 25/ 03/2025 Date of Ruling: 25/ 03/2025 MLYAMBINA, 3. The instant application is in respect''of granting extension of time to the Applicant to file application for revision of the CMA Award out of time prescribed by the law. The Application is supported with the affidavit of the Applicant one John Mfungo Majura. It was disputed through the Counter affidavit of Wema Simon, the Respondent's Human Resource and Administration Officer of the Respondent. At the hearing Keneth Mwangoka, Personal Representative for the Applicant told the Court that the impugned CMA Award was issued to us on 15/01/ 2025. Thus, the Applicant was supposed to file the revision application by 25/02/2025. H e however filed his application on 25/02/2025, unfortunately, the application was struck out on 26/02/2025 on the ground that the Applicant did not attach chamber summons, affidavit and notice of application. The Applicant then prepared the application within 3 days and filed this application on 28/02/2025. Thus, the Applicant was late for three days. In reply, Counsel Joseph Rugambwa submitted that the decision was issued on 15/12/2024. He further admitted that the last date of filing the revision was 25/02/2025. Counsel Rugambwa disputed the submission that this application was filed on 28/02/2025. It was his view that this application was filed on 03/03/2025, making a delay

of six days. Counsel Rugambwa prayed the application be dismissed on failure to account each day of delay. The other reason advanced by Counsel Rugambwa for dismissing the application was that the Applicant deposed false by saying that he filed on 28/02/2025 while he filed on 03/03/2025. To bolster up the position, he cited the case of Bashir Ally v. Anyengile Andendekisye Mwamaluka and 2 Others, Civil Appeal No. 49 of 2021, Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Mbeya. Pp 8-9. In which the Court stated inter alia that: The affidavit which is tainted with untruth is no affidavit at all and cannot be relied upon to support an application. False evidence cannot be acted upon to resolve any issue. We pray the affidavit in support of this application be struck out on that ground and the application be dismissed. Upon going through the records, i noted true that the Applicant submitted this application on 28/02/2025. As such, there was a delay of three days to file the application. I agree with Counsel Rugambwa that a false affidavit is not an evidence at all as stated by the Court of Appeal in numerous cases including the cited case of Bashir Ally which made reference to among other cases the case of Ignazio Mesina v. Willow Investments, Civil Application No. 21 of 2001. I also agree with Counsel Rugambwa that in cases of this nature, the i ■ ■ applicant is required to account for each day

of delay. Generally, the Applicant is required to advance good cause for the Court to grant extension. In the case of Bertha v. Alex Maganga, Civil Reference No. 7 of 2016 the Court of Appeal stated as follows in regard to what amounts to good cause for the delay: Whilst it may not be possible to lay down an invariable definition of good cause so as to guide the exercise of the Court discretion, the Court is enjoined to consider, inter alia reasons for the delay, length of the delay, whether the Applicant was diligent and degree of prejudice to the Respondent if time is extended. This Court is of the view that the Applicant's general conduct in this case demonstrates lack of negligence on his party. Immediately after the application was rejected on 26/02/2025, he submitted this application online on 28/02/2025. From that date, the application was out of his control. It was subject of admission by the Deputy Registrar and assignment by the Judge In­ charge of the Labour Court. It is my humbie view that the Applicant never slept over his rights. In the end result, I find the Applicant has presented good cause for the Court to extend time as prayed. Thus, the application is hereby granted on merits. The Applicant is given fourteen days to file the intended application from the date of this order. It is so ordered. Y.J. MLYAMBINA

JUDGE 25/03/2025 Ruling delivered and dated 25th March, 2025 in the presence of Keneth Mwangoka Personal Representative for the Applicant and Counsel Joseph Rugambwa for the Respondent. Right of Appeal explained.