Download PDF

Tanzania Judgment

TANZLII

johnson adam wakuru vs alfagems co limited 2020 tzhcld 3765 27 november 2020

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The applicant received the decision copy on 16th May 2019 as per tribunal records, and filed the revision on 5th July 2019, which is out of time. No extension was sought, thus the application is dismissed.

Court disposition

dismissed

Orders

  • Revision application number 42/2019 is dismissed for being filed out of time.
  • Right of appeal explained.

02

Material facts

Parties

Johnson Adamu Wakuru

Applicant

Alfagems Co. Limited

Respondent Counsel: Niragira Ernest

Amounts and remedies

  • Days Out of Time: 6

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Revision / Ruling

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Applicant argued he was not given a copy of the decision on the date it was delivered and received it in June 2019, thus the revision was not out of time.
Respondent
Respondent argued the decision was delivered on 16th May 2019 and applicant was given a copy on the same day as per tribunal records, making the revision out of time.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Halfani Sudi Vs. Abieza Chichi (1998) TLR 527

    Court records are presumed accurate and should not be lightly impeached.

  2. 02

    Lakhamshi Bros Ltd Vs. Raja and Sons (1966) E.A 313

    There must be an end to litigation; time limitation is crucial in law.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The applicant received the decision copy on 16th May 2019 as per tribunal records, and filed the revision on 5th July 2019, which is out of time. No extension was sought, thus the application is dismissed.

Obiter and limits

  • Time limitation is mathematics in law, one cannot overlook time specified within which to file certain dispute.
  • Without limitation court will have endless litigation at the whims of the parties.

Court disposition

dismissed

  • Revision application number 42/2019 is dismissed for being filed out of time.
  • Right of appeal explained.

Source and reliance status

TANZLII · 27 November 2020

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

TANZLII

Judgment· 27 November 2020

johnson adam wakuru vs alfagems co limited 2020 tzhcld 3765 27 november 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA

LABOUR DIVISION

AT MOROGORO REVISION NO. 42 OF 2019 JOHNSON ADAMU WAKURU............................. APPLICANT

VERSUS ALFAGEMS CO. LIMITED............................... RESPONDENT

RULING Date of last Order: 27/11/2020 Date of Ruling: 27/11/2020 Z.G.Muruke, J, When this revision came for hearing, court suo motto raised issue of time limitation, in that revision has been filed out of time and asked parties to address the court on the point. Applicant who was in person, submitted that, decision was delivered on 16th May, 2019 in his presence but in the absence of the respondent. He was not given copy of the decision until sometimes June, 2019. So revision is not out of time. Respondent counsel Niragira Ernest, supported preliminary objection, when he said, decision was delivered on 16th May, 2019. Revision filed on 5th July, 2019 being after 49 days after the decision. Applicant was given copy of the decision on 16th May, 2019 on the date of the decision according to CMA records, thus revision is out of time. In rejoinder applicant insisted that, he was present on the date of decision but was not given copy on that day. He was later given in June. Having heard both parties on the preliminary objection suo motto raised by the court that, revision is out of time, the answer to the i arguments by applicant and respondent counsel is found on coram of the date of the decision which is reproduced below:- Date: 16/05/2019 Akidi: Shauri mbele ya Mhe. Zuhura, K - Muamuzi Mahudhurio: Johson Adam Wakuru - Mlalamikaji Mlalamikiwa: Hajafika Hali ya shauri: Shauri limekuja kwa ajili kutolewa uamuzi. Maelezo: Upande wa mlalamikaji umefika mbele ya Tume lakini upande wa mlalamikiwa haujafika bila taarifa yoyote. Hata hivyo mlalamikaji amepewa nakala ya uamuzi. Amri: Mgogoro huu uamuzi umetolewa. Sgd: Zuhura K

MUAMUZI 16/05/2019 From the records as produced above, applicant was issued with copy of the decision sought to be challenged on the very day of 16th May, 2019. This is according to tribunal records that cannot easily be disregarded by mere words from applicant. Court/Commission records cannot just be impeached by mere complain without any proof. Otherwise, any dissatisfied party to the proceeding will be at liberty to raise anything at the detriment of consumer of justice. This cannot just be left to continue. In the case of Halfani Sudi Vs. Abieza Chichi (1998) TLR 527 at page 529 it was held that, court records is a serious document. It should not be lightly impeached, and that there is always a presumption that a court records represents accurately what happened. 2 There is no any record to the contrary of what happened on 16th May,2019 when the commission pronounced decision sought to be challenged. To this court, as the records speaks loudly, applicant received copy of decision on 16th May,2019, and filed present revision on 5th July, 2019. This revision is out of time for almost 6 days. No extension sought before filing the same. Applicant is trying to close eyes on the issue of limitation that is obvious. Time limitation is mathematics in law, one cannot overlook time specified within which to file certain dispute. Without limitation court will have endless litigation

at the whims of the parties. Way back 1966 in the case of Lakhamshi Bros Ltd Vs. Raja and Sons (1966) E.A 313 a 314 Court held that there is principle which is of the very greatest importance in the administration of justice and that principle is this, it is the interest of all persons that there should be an end to litigation. Applicant having filed revision out of time, and without leave of the court, his application deserve to be dismissed. Accordingly revision application number 42/2019 is dismissed for being filed out of time. . IL//) /) .1 > Z.G.Murufe '

JUDGE 27/11/2020 Ruling delivered today in the presence of applicant in person and in the presence of Niragira Ernest, Advocate for the respondent. Right of appeal explained. Z.G.Muruke

JUDGE 27/11/2020 3

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Halfani Sudi Vs. Abieza Chichi (1998) TLR 527

Case cited

Lakhamshi Bros Ltd Vs. Raja and Sons (1966) E.A 313

Case cited

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.