k j motors vs richard kishamba others 1999 tzhc 34 8 february 1999

k j motors vs richard kishamba others 1999 tzhc 34 8 february 1999

The requirement for leave under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC does not apply to employment causes initiated by a labour officer's report under the Employment Ordinance, Cap. 366, as such proceedings are not ordinary suits and are to be determined with substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities. The claims were not time-barred because they were based on contract of employment, not compensation, and thus subject to a six-year limitation period, not one year.

Citation
k j motors vs richard kishamba others 1999 tzhc 34 8 february 1999
Parties
Applicant: K. J. Motors; Respondents: Richard Kishamba & 119 Others
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
8 February 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Revision / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Representative Suits, Limitation of Actions, Labour Disputes, Procedural Compliance
Source Language
English
Employment Law Civil Procedure Representative Suits Limitation of Actions Labour Disputes Procedural Compliance

Case Brief

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K. J. Motors

Applicant

Richard Kishamba & 119 Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Revision / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC was required for the suit to proceed as a representative action
  2. 2 Whether the claim was time-barred under the Law of Limitation Act, 1971

Ratio Decidendi

The requirement for leave under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC does not apply to employment causes initiated by a labour officer's report under the Employment Ordinance, Cap. 366, as such proceedings are not ordinary suits and are to be determined with substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities. The claims were not time-barred because they were based on contract of employment, not compensation, and thus subject to a six-year limitation period, not one year.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for revision is dismissed.