justine urono vs foremost system limited 2021 tzhcld 322 13 august 2021

justine urono vs foremost system limited 2021 tzhcld 322 13 august 2021

The applicant failed to prove the existence of a permanent employment contract or consistent monthly payments. The evidence showed the applicant was a casual worker, and the respondent's business registration post-dated the applicant's alleged employment period. The CMA's decision was not faulty and the application...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
justine urono vs foremost system limited 2021 tzhcld 322 13 august 2021
Parties
Applicant: Justine Urono; Respondent: Foremost System Limited
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
13 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Labour Revision / Judgment on Application for Revision of CMA Award
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Employment Contract, Casual Labour, Burden of Proof, Unfair Termination
Source Language
english
Labour Law Employment Contract Casual Labour Burden of Proof Unfair Termination

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Justine Urono

Applicant

Foremost System Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Revision / Judgment on Application for Revision of CMA Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was employed on a permanent basis or as a casual labourer
  2. 2 Whether the CMA award was procured with material irregularities
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was unfairly terminated without being heard

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to prove the existence of a permanent employment contract or consistent monthly payments. The evidence showed the applicant was a casual worker, and the respondent's business registration post-dated the applicant's alleged employment period. The CMA's decision was not faulty and the application lacked merit.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for revision is dismissed
  • The CMA award is sustained