jongo mwikola vs geita gold mining limited 2024 tzca 125 23 february 2024

jongo mwikola vs geita gold mining limited 2024 tzca 125 23 february 2024

The Court held that the grounds of appeal were largely on matters of fact, which it had no jurisdiction to entertain. The affidavit supporting the revision application met the requirements of Rule 24(3) of the Labour Court Rules. The evidence relied upon by the employer was direct and not hearsay. The misconduct...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
jongo mwikola vs geita gold mining limited 2024 tzca 125 23 february 2024
Parties
Appellant: Jongo Mwikola; Respondent: Geita Gold Mining Limited
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
23 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unfair Termination, Disciplinary Procedure, Hearsay Evidence, Appeals on Points of Law, Gross Misconduct, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
english
Labour Law Employment Law Unfair Termination Disciplinary Procedure Hearsay Evidence Appeals on Points of Law Gross Misconduct Procedural Fairness

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jongo Mwikola

Appellant

Geita Gold Mining Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in law in upholding the termination of the appellant's employment
  2. 2 Whether the affidavit in support of the application for revision before the High Court complied with Rule 24(3) of the Labour Court Rules
  3. 3 Whether the High Court considered only the respondent's evidence and ignored the appellant's evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the grounds of appeal were largely on matters of fact, which it had no jurisdiction to entertain. The affidavit supporting the revision application met the requirements of Rule 24(3) of the Labour Court Rules. The evidence relied upon by the employer was direct and not hearsay. The misconduct constituted gross dishonesty, justifying termination under the employer's code and the law. Procedural grounds not raised or determined in the lower courts could not be entertained on appeal. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed