LABOUR APPEAL NO 25400 NO 2023 JUMA B SWEID VRS THE REGISTRAR OF ORGANIZATIONS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA LABOUR DIVISION AT DAR ES SALAAM LABOUR APPEAL N0.25400 OF 2023 JUMA B. SWEID.......................................................... 1st APPELLANT BASIL S. HENJEWELE................................................ 2nd APPELLANT RAYMOND MPAGAMA.............................................. 3rd APPELLANT AGGREY MWAMBOLA................................................ 4™ APPELLANT DANIEL MWASI......................................................... 5™ APPELLANT VERSUS THE REGISTRAR OF ORGANIZATIONS................... 1st RESPONDENT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.................................. 2nd RESPONDENT JUDGEMENT OPIYO, J The Appellants herein being dissatisfied with the decision of the Registrar of Organizations dated on 3rd April 2023 by Honorable Registrar Pendo Z. Berege, brought this appeal under section 57 and 94(l)(a) of Employment and Labour Relations Act, Cap 366 R.E 2019 and rule 29 and 30(1), 55(1) and (2) of the Labour Court Rules, GN NO. 106 of 2007 on the following five grounds:- (i) That, the Registrar of Organizations erred in law by failing to find that the trade union established by the twenty-three employees including the Appellants had fulfilled the requirements for registration pursuant to section 46(l)(a) and (d) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act [Cap 366 R.E 2019] (ii) That, the Registrar of Organizations erred in law in finding that the trade union Postal Services Workers' Union of Tanzania is sectoral trade union (iii) The Registrar of Organizations erred in law for failing to avail the appellants' right to be heard pertaining the application for registering the trade union, before making the decision of refusal to register the trade union herein Postal Services Workers' Union of Tanzania (iv) That, the Registrar of Organizations erred in law by failing to find that the trade union applying for registration is a bonafide trade (v) That, the registrar of organizations erred in law by delivering a decision which was unlawful procured. The appellants, through Heri MacDavies Kusekwa in gratis, argued jointly through the first and forth grounds. They submitted that, the Registrar of Organizations erred in law by failing to find that the trade union established by the twenty-three employees including the appellants had fulfilled the requirements for registration pursuant to section 46(l)(a) and (d) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act [Cap 366 R.E 2019] and that the Registrar of Organizations erred in law by failing to find that the trade union applying for registration is a bonafidetrade union. The Appellants proceed to submit that, the registrar of organizations through Trade Union Form No.4 (TUF.4) dated 3rd day of April 2023 informed the established trade union about her refusal of registering the same on the reason that the trade union has not fulfilled the requirement for registration as provided under section 46(l)(a) and (d) of Employment and Labour Relations Act[Cap 366 R.E 2019] That, the provision of section 461(a) and (b) of Cap 366 requires that in order for a trade union to be registered, it has to fulfil some requirements, including being a bonafide trade union. According to them, a bonafide trade union is the one that has met all the requirement of the law as provided for under section 46(l)(a) to paragraph (g) of ELRA. The requirement under the above provision includes, being a bonafide trade union, not for gain, independent of any employer's association or employer, established at a meeting of at least twenty (20) employees, has adopted constitution and rules that comply with section 47, adopted the name that does not resemble the name of another union and having an address in the United Republic of Tanzania. Therefore, the trade union POSWUTA was established by twenty-three (23) employees from Head Quarters and others from Dar es Salaam Branches of Tanzania Posts Corporation as seen in the Minutes and the Attendance of the employees on a meeting of establishment of the trade union, it is not for gain rather it is for protection and spear heading the rights and interests of employees. It is also an independent trade union and has adopted Constitution and Rules for which provision complied with section 47 of the ELRA. Lastly, and its name does not resemble any name of^afiy registered trade union that could have brought confusion and it has an address within Tanzania. This imply compliance with all the requirements of the law; thus, the refusal of registration was an error in law on part of the Registrar, they argued. To substantiate their argument, they made reference to the case of Ahmed Ramadhani Kaumo v The Attorney General, Labour Application No.224 of 2023, High Court Labour Division Dar es Salaam,(Unreported), at page 14, presided by the Hon. Mlyambina (J), in which the court held a bona fide trade union as the one which meets all the requirements of the law as provided under section 46(1) of the ELRA (supra). Thus, as POSWUTA met all the requirements as it was established by 23 employees, thus, superseding the threshold of the law requiring 20 employees. He also cited page 13 of the same case where it was held that:- "The applicant contends the establishment o f a trade union as per section 46(1)(d) (supra) which requires a trade union to be established at a meeting o f at least 20 employees. From the meaning o f a trade union quoted above, it is my view that since it is a union established by employee, a meeting in question is conducted to prove that such a trade union is genuinely initiated by employees and not otherwise" On ground two, the appellants' submission is that, the Registrar of Organizations erred in law in finding that the trade union Postal Services Workers' Union of Tanzania is a sectoral trade union while the sector union are not existing since the repeal of the Trade Union Act, No.10 of 1998. The appellants submit that the registrar of organization misled herself and occasioned error in law. She neither specified as to what provision of the repealed Act pertaining registration of trade union required the trade union that sought registration to be sectorial based. This made her reason too vague, they argued. Nevertheless, it is not true that the repealed Trade Union Act, No. 10 of 1998 contained the said requirement, that is sectorial based trade unions. Under section 8 of the Trade Union Act, No.10 of 1998 there have never been such a requirement. They continued to contend that, section 103(3) of ELRA has saved the provisions of the Trade Union Act, No. 10. of 1998 through third Schedule of ELRA regarding transition of the existed trade unions registered and existed before the Act.No. 10 of 1998 was repealed saving the registered trade unions to the administration under the ELRA. Therefore, the trade unions that existed and registered under Act. No. 10 of 1998 were not repealed nor a requirement of sectorial trade unions was part of the requirements for registration of a trade union under the said Act, what happened was that the trade unions registered under Act No. 10 of 1998 were transited to the administration under the ELRA and deemed to have been registered thereof vide article 2(1) and 2(a),(b) and (c) of the third schedule of the ELRA, hence, to date the said Trade Unions do exist under the ELRA, that is why at page 8 in appeal records on the Notice of refusal i. e T.UF4 at paragraph (c) she has recognized the Postal Services as a sector regardless of absence of such requirement in ELRA and in Act. No. 10 of 1998, if at all, such requirement that is registering trade unions based on sectorial existed in the repealed law i.e. Act. No.10 of 1998, such provision would be among the provisions therein stipulating the said requirement but to the contrary, the said Act has no such requirement, that is why the trade unions established and registered under Act No. 10 of 1998 were transited to the administration under ELRA. They continued to argue that, POSWUTA is not a sectorial trade union rather its Constitution under Article 3.1.2 at page 15 of the same found at page 27 of the appeal records has expressed the area of recruitment as required under rule 23(1) and (2) of the Employment and Labour Relations (General) Regulations G.N 47 of 2017. Hence, POSWUTA as a trade union established by employees whose members shall be from institutions and employers that provide postal services, that is both private and public and not otherwise. The third ground of appeal is that, the Registrar of Organizations erred in law for failing to avail the appellants' right to be heard pertaining the application for registering their trade union before making the decision of refusal to register. On this ground they submitted that, it is a trite law that any decision affecting the rights or interests of any person arrived at without hearing the affected party is a nullity, even if the same decision would have been arrived at had the affected party been heard. They argued that, if the appellants would have been availed such an opportunity of being heard, they would have defended or provided an explanation as to why POSWUTA was seeking to be registered regardless of the existence of two trade unions which indeed are unknown and are not in existence. It was only known by the Appellants who are founding members of POSWUTA that at their place of work there is existence of two trade unions when they received the Notice of Refusal on 3rd May 2023. It is only through being given right to be heard, they could have the opportunity to state whether the appellants had fulfilled the requirement of section 46(l)(a) and(d) of ELRA and whether the trade union is a sectorial trade union. Therefore, if the appellants could have been availed an opportunity to be heard before the 1st Respondent reached the decision, the appellants could not have been prejudiced their right and freedom of association to date as provided for and protected under Article 20 of the Constitution of United Republic of Tanzania as amended time after time, and section 9(l)(a) and (b) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act,(Cap 366 R.E 2019) for having refused to register their established trade union. They continued arguing that, the 1st Respondent could have applied section 48(2) of the EL.RA to inquire on anything pertaining to the application for registration, but she never got use of the provision. Instead, it was through a letter dated 27th January 2023 sent to Communication and Transportation Workers Union of Tanzania (COTWU(T)), Chama cha Wafanyakazi wa Sekta ya Huduma za Mtandao wa Mawasiliano Tanzania (TEWUTA) and to Postal Services Workers Union of Tanzania (POSWUTA), the said 1st Respondent summoned POSWUTA to attend the meeting aimed at providing additional information with regard to the application. However, they had, by letter dated 2nd February 2023 requested the 1st Respondent to inquire all the added information she needed by way of writing since the trade union has no source of fund to fund the delegates for a meeting. Further, they expressed their astonishment for the registrar requiring the said information through a meeting with the trade union that have already been registered. They continue to argue that, after all, the existence of more than one trade union at one workplace has never been contrary to the law rather the law encourages the employees to join any trade union, form a trade union or to participate in lawful trade union activities as envisaged under section 9 of the ELRA. That, under section 67(1) and (2) of the ELRA it is expressed that the registered trade union with majority members shall be recognized as an exclusive bargaining agent of employees, meaning that where there are more than one registered trade union at work place, then, the registered trade union with majority members shall be recognized by an employer or employers' association as an exclusive bargaining agent. Therefore, it is not true that existence of more than one registered trade union at workplace is illegal or prohibited by the law, had the 1st Respondent availed an opportunity to the appellants their freedom of association would not have been infringed. Putting emphasis on the right to be heard they cited the case of MBEYA RUKWA AUTOPARTS TRANSPORT LIMITED VS JESTINA GEORGE MWAKYOMA, (2003) TLR, the Court considered the English Case of RIDGE VS BALDWIN (1964) AC where it was held that:- "...this country, natural justice is not merely a principle o f common law; it has become a fundamental constitutional rightArticle 13 (6) (a) includes the right to be heard among the attributes o f equality before the law and declares in part: He also cited the case of Patrobert D. Ishengoma v.Kahama Mining Corporation Ltd,Civil Appeal No.172 of 2016,CAT at Mwanza, at page 11 to 12, appreciated the decision Deo Shirimja v. Two Others,Civil Appeal No.34 of 2008, "None o f the parties was heard at a ll before the order was made. As it turned out, the order, made in breach o f the rules o f naturaljustice, immediately adversely affected the plaintiffs in the suit and subsequently the current applicants who were the agents/servants o f the former. It is established law that any judicial order made in violation o f any o f the two cardinal rules o f naturaljustice is void from the beginning and must always be quashed, even if it is made in good faith. " Therefore, the appellants submitted that, since the 1st Respondent did not avail them the right to be heard, the said decision is null and void since there li was no good faith upon reaching that decision for the 1st Respondent had several avenues to employ for instance section 48(2) of the ELRA and avail them the queries in a mode requested as per their letter dated 2nd February 2023. They thus, prayed for this ground of appeal be allowed. The fifth ground (5) is that the registrar of organizations erred in law by delivering a decision which was unlawful procured. For the ground, they submitted that, the employees wishing to establish a trade union at their work place must be at least not less than 20 employees vide section 46(l)(d) of the ELRA. POSWUTA was established on 22nd July 2022 by 23 employees who made an application for registration and the 1st Respondent on 17th October 2022 informed the trade union to have received the application via a letter. However, they found that the 1st Respondent has faulted the rules and the law by violating the procedures laid down under rule 20(3) of the G.N.47 of 2017 that require all the activities under sections 46 and 48 of the ELRA to be done within thirty (30) days from the date when the applicant submitted application including communicating the decision of refusal to register a trade union vide rule 24 of the Rules G.N 47 of 2017. The appellants submitted that the 1st Respondent issued the notification of refusal to register a trade union to the appellants on 3rd April 2023, that is six months after the submission of the application for registration, hence contrary to the dictates of the law. They submitted that, given the fouls made by the 1st Respondent they are entitled to believe that the same had bad faith. That goes to the appeal stage in the sense that, even after appellant lodged the notice of appeal on 15th May 2023 as required by the law, the first respondent was not ready to provide the appellants with certified copies of written proceedings until when the Appellants filed an application to compel her to serve them via Misc. Application No 299 of 2023. Consequently, the appellants were supplied with the copies on 23rd October 2023 at 4:41 P.M by the Registrar of the High Court (Labour Division). Therefore, the appellants pray for the Court to allow this ground and the appeal in its entirety by setting aside the decision by the Registrar of organizations (the 1st Respondent) and find that the appellants being the interested employees established the trade union and complied with the requirements for registration and order the Registrar of Organizations to register the same and give any other orders as the Court may deed just to grant. In reply, on the first ground, respondents counterargued by submitting that the Registrar of Organizations was correct to decide that the said trade union failed to meet the requirements under Section 46 (1) (d) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act [Cap 336 R. E. 2019] which provides for the requirement of meeting of at least 20 employees in order to establish a Trade Union. That, under the above provision, it is the requirement of the law that for a trade union to be registered, members of the said trade union (POSWUTA) must be employees. He continued to submit that, after the members of the said Trade Union made an application to the Registrar of Organization for their trade union to be registered and introducing themselves as employees of Tanzania Posts Corporation [See page 108 of the records of appeal, one among the responsibility of the Registrar before registering any trade union, was to make sure that all the requirements are adhered to for a trade union to be registered. After the Registrar received the said application, in order to see whether the requirement of section 46 (1) (d) had been adhered to, the Registrar wrote a letter dated 17/02/2023 to Postmaster General to inquire on the employment status of one of the members, Ahmed R. Kaumo as his name appeared on the list. The said letter was answered showing that the said Ahmed R. Kaumo was not an employee of Tanzania Posts Corporation as he had already been terminated. Therefore, the fact that Ahmed R. Kaumo was not one of the employees and the law requires all members to be employees, the trade union failed to meet the above requirement. He continued to contend that, the said section 46 (1) (d) of Cap 336 R. E. 2019 requires a trade union to be established at a meeting conducted by members. But, when the registrar of trade union inquired to the Postmaster General through same letter dated 17/02/2023 as to whether the said meeting as per the requirement of section 46 (1) (d) was conducted, the response through a letter dated 28/02/2023 (page 12.2 of the records of appeal) was that, no meeting by members of trade union that was conducted on that date. This clearly shows that, the appellants failed to meet the requirement of section 46 (1) (d) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act [Cap 336 R. E. 2019] as they failed to as they failed to prove that to court to ever conducting the alleged meeting. On the fourth ground that the Registrar of Organization erred in law by failing to find that the trade union is a bonafide trade union, their response is that, the Employment and Labour Relations Act [Cap 336 R. E. 2019] which requires a trade union to be a bonafide trade union. That, according to the provision of Rule 22 of the Employment and Labour Relations (General) Rules G.N 47 of 2017 Organization shall not be registered unless it sets clearly a bona fide motive of its establishment by giving the Registrar any information as he may require for such purpose. But, in our case the members lacked honesty as they submitted their application introducing themselves as employees while in real sense not all members were employees of Tanzania Posts Corporation and by saying to have conducted meeting of members while no meeting was conducted on that particular date to that effect that was proved. To them, with those two deceits, the Registrar was right to decide that, the trade union did not comply with section 46 (1) (a) of the ELRA. Therefore, it is their stand that the first and fourth grounds of appeal lacks merit and should be dismissed. Regarding third ground, on the alleged Registrar's failure to avail appellants right to be heard, it is their view that, the Appellants were afforded with right to be heard. In showing the appellants were afforded with right to be heard, they submitted that, soon after the Registrar of Organizations was served with the application from the member of the trade unior ' i trade union, the Registrar wrote to the members of the trade union (POSWUTA) a letter dated 27/01/2023 asking the members of the trade union for a meeting to discuss on their application, but they responded through their letter dated 02/02/2023 declining the call on the ground of financial constraint This clearly shows that the appellants were afforded with the right to be heard, but it is them who refused the offer. It is therefore their stand that, the third ground of appeal also lacks merit and the same should be dismissed. Turning to ground number four, they generally submitted that the Registrar of Organization reached to a lawful decision in accordance to what the law provides that the members of the organization failed to meet the requirements of the law in order for their trade union to be registered. And in his decision, he clearly gave a reason why he could not register the said trade union because it is true the appelants included the name of one who was not the employee as the law requires. They continued to submit that, it is true rule 20 (3) of GN 47 of 2017 requires all activities under section 46 and 48 of ELRA to be done within 30 days. However, there are several reasons that can cause a decision to be procured out of the days prescribed by the taw and even if the decision is procured out of the days prescribed by the law, it will not mean that the said decision is unlawful procured. Taking an example on the practice under section 28 of the Civil Procedure Code, CAP. 33 R. E. 2019 which requires the Court to deliver its decision not more than ninety days. But if the court gives decision outside the 90 days does not make the decision unlawful procured for that reason. Therefore, as there is no way that the Appellants have been prejudiced since they have been issued with a decision of the Registrar of Organization giving out reasons for the said decision. Therefore, it is their stand that, this ground of appeal as well lacks merit and the same should be dismissed. Lastly, on second ground that the Registrar of Organization erred in law in finding that the trade union is sectorial trade union, they argued that the registrar was correct to reach the said decision because by the time the members of the trade union applied for their organization to be registered, the unions coming out from postal sector did not exist anymore since the Trade Union Act, Act No. 10 of 1998 had been repealed. There is no way that the registrar could have registered the said trade union which the law does not provide for its existence. They therefore concluded that the appeal lacks merits since the Registrar of Organization reached into a fair decision to decide not to register the trade union since the said trade union failed to meet the requirements stipulated by the law. The appeal shall be dismissed, they prayed. Parties' submissions have been painstakingly considered. For a trade union to have a valid registration it has to fulfill all the requirements under section 46(l)(a) and (d) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act [Cap 366 R.E 2019] including the same being a bonafide and which is not for gain, independent of any employer's association or employer, established at a meeting of at least twenty (20) employees, has adopted constitution and rules that comply with section 47 and adopted the name that does not resemble the name of another union and having an address in the United Republic of Tanzania. According to the Registrar's letter refusing registration, POSWUTA did not fulfil the above requirements. The issue for this court is to examine whether POSWUTA did fulfil all the requirements contrary to what the registrar's decision was based on. The contested requirements alleged to have not been fulfilled include not being bonafide, being established with members some of who are not employees and established without conducting the meeting of employees. In regard to the first contested requirement of being not a bonafide union, the appellants argued that the Registrar of Organizations erred in law by failing to find that their trade union applying for registration is a bonafide trade union. They argued that, a bonafide trade union is the one that has met all the requirements of the law as provided for under the above provision of law. That, POSWUTA having been established by twenty-three (23) employees superseded the threshold of the law requiring 20 employees. That, it had also fulfilled the rest of the requirements qualifying to be a bonafide union contemplated by the provision above. The respondents on the other hand argued that the said trade union failed to meet the requirements under Section 46 (1) (d) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act (Cap 336 R. E. 2019), especially the three contested requirements above. They argued that, it is the requirement of the law that, for a trade union to be registered, members of the said trade union must be employees, but in our case the Union made an application to the registration introducing themselves as employees of Tanzania Posts Corporation while one of them, Ahmed R. Kaumo, was not an employee as he had already been terminated. The appellants deny introducing themselves asemployees of TPC, but in the preamble of the union's constitution submitted for registration, they had introduced themselves so. At Paragraph 1 it is written that:- "Katiba ya POSWUTA ... inatokana na dhamira tufiyonayo sisi wafanyakazi wa Shirika la Posta Tanzania katika kuanzisha chama cha wafanyakazi..." Literally translated it reads: "The constitution o f POSWUTA...is a result o f the desire o f us, the employees o f the Tanzania Postal Cooperation to establish a trade Union..." This is true also to minute 2.2 of the Minutes of the meeting of members attached to the application. With such introduction in mind, the reason for the Registrar, who is endowed with the duty to make sure that all the requirements are adhered to for a trade union to be registered to inquire from Poster Master General on the status of that particular alleged employee, Ahmed R. Kaumo was formed. This was done in order to see whether the requirement of section 46 (1) (d) had been adhered to. But, the reply came that Ahmed R. Kaumo was not an employee of Tanzania Postal corporation (TPC). It follows therefore that, provide it was proved that he was not an employee as purportedly shown in the minutes of the meeting of the TPC employees and preamble of their constitution, while the law requires all to be employees, then the union failed to meet this requirement as correctly argued by the respondents. From the records, the Registrar also inquired as whether the meeting of the TPC employees was conducted on the alleged date, but the reply also stated that no meeting was held on such date by the TPC employees. Section 46(l)(d) of the Cap 366 RE 2019 requires the union to be established through a meeting of not less than 20 employees. Since the Postmasters General's letter proved that there was no meeting that was conducted on that date by trade union at the hall located at TPC Headquarter offices. It means, the union failed to comply with the above requirement of conducting a meeting of members at establishment level. This in turn, proves insincerity on part of the appellants as the purported minutes lacks validity. Even if it could have been proved that the meeting was indeed conducted, but given the fact that one of the members in the list of those absent with apology was not actually an employee taints the minutes in a way I have explained above. In regard to fourth ground therefore, I am in agreement with the Learned Vs State Attorneys representing the respondent that, the union failed to meet the requirement of section 46 (1) (a) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act [Cap 336 R. E. 2019] which requires a trade union to be a bonafide trade union. This is because, the union failed to exhibit honesty by submitting their application for registration introducing themselves as employees while in real sense not all members were employees of Tanzania Posts Corporation and purporting to have conducted meeting of members at the TPC Head Office while no such meeting was ever conducted to that effect, on that particular date. By that, the union failed to comply with section 46 (1) (a) of Cap 336 R. E. 2019 requiring the same to be bonafide. The 3rd ground is based on the claim that, the appellants were not availed with opportunity or right to be heard, before reaching decision of refusing registration, my take is that, the ground is baseless as well. My reasons are that, it is clearly on record that the 1st respondent applied section 48(2.) of Cap 366 by inviting the appellants to a dialog regarding their application for registration. But it is the appellants who refused to attend the meeting notice of which was through the Registrars letter dated 27th January, 2023. This meeting was the one aimed at providing additional information with regard to their application for registration, as they as Mr. Msekwa readily admitted in his submission. However, the appellants declined the invitation through their letter dated 2nd February, 2023 claiming financial constraint and reluctance of being combined with long registered trade unions, COTWU(T) and TEWUTA in the dialog. The appellants instead of attending the meeting, replied to the Registrars notice of meeting by requesting him to inquire additional information she needed through writing as they were not ready for the above two reasons. This, in my view, seemed like the appellants assumed powers of choosing how the registrar should inquire the information from them, which in any case is not within their mandate. It is indeed surprising on how a person who has been given a notice for the meeting or a chance for dialog and chose to decline the chance can in turn claim being denied an opportunity to be heard! I therefore agree to what was submitted by the other side that the appellants were afforded with the right to be heard, but it is them who refused the offer. This ground is also associated with the other reason for refusal of registration that the postal sector has two trade unions existing which are conducting the trade union duties to date. The appellants argued that, the existence of more than one trade unions at one workplace is not prohibited by any law. Rather, the law encourages the employees to form one or join any of their choice or freely participate in lawful trade union activities. Indeed, it is not a bar for more than one trade union to exist in a work place. Thorough examination of facts in our case, reveals that, it is the appellants who insinuated non-existence of any other trade union in the sector as expressed in their submissions and pleadings that does not indicate their knowledge of existence of those other trade unions. Even in their submission, Mr. Heri Kusekwa stated that the appellants became aware of the other trade unions upon receiving 1st respondents notice for the joint dialogue together with those trade unions. Faced with this insinuation, the 1st respondent had no option rather than proving the appellants wrong by inviting those other trade Unions to appreciate their existence, contrary to what was stated by the appellants. Therefore, in as much as I agree that, the existence of other trade Unions does not deny the parties right to association and forming another trade union, but it is the appellants denial of their existence that brought that ground of refusal of registration to the perspective it was put in by the registrar. On the 5th ground that, the Registrar of Organizations erred in law by delivering a decision which was unlawful procured as it was delivered out of time, the issue for determination is whether the determination was time barred. The appellants argued that all the processes for registration ranging from submission of application for registration to registration or notice of refusal of registration has to be within 30 days in terms of that of rule 20(3) of the G.N.47 of 2017, thus, in our case, the notice of refusal that was issued beyond the 30 days, from the date of application was wrongly procured for being reached out of time. It is noted that, the provision above do provide for prescribed time within which to complete the process, but it does not provide the consequence for non-compliance. By so not providing, it means the action is not vitiated by being taken out of time as insinuated by the applicant. This is because, there are a number of factors which can lead to such delay. This leaves the prescribed period as a best practice stipulation but which non compliance has no consequence of vitiating the process. For the reason, the decision was not wrongly procured for merely being given out of 30 prescribed days. On the issue of the POSWUTA being a sectoral trade Union. I have to admit that, agreeing with the appellants that the statement is indeed vague, as I also failed to grasp the gist this ground for refusal of registration. The proper explanation would have been acquired if the appellants would have attended the dialogue session proposed by the first respondent, it is their refusal for dialogue that brought this incomprehension of what the first respondent wanted to know from them. Therefore, in as much as have not grasped with the necessary clarity even from the submission of both sides, I am not in a position to guess the intention of the 1st respondent in formulating this ground and thus, I am not going to make decision regarding this ground. The task is in turn placed upon the appellants to inquire clarification from the 1st respondent for proper comprehension of the demands of this ground before they can successfully challenge the 1st respondent's decision based on it. Based on the above finding this appeal is therefore dismissed for want of merits. JUDGE 7/6/2024