kastan mining plc v devota salum 2021 tzhcld 2089 19 november 2021

kastan mining plc v devota salum 2021 tzhcld 2089 19 november 2021

The Arbitrator did not make a finding of lockout as defined by law, did not declare the entire employment contract void but only the conflicting provision, and properly found that the respondent was unfairly terminated as there was no proof of resignation. The CMA had jurisdiction over the educational support agreement as it arose from the employment relationship. The award of severance pay and refund of Tshs. 400,000/= was set aside for lack of proof, and compensation was reduced to 10 months' salary.

Citation
kastan mining plc v devota salum 2021 tzhcld 2089 19 november 2021
Parties
Applicant: Kastan Mining PLC; Respondent: Devota Salum
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
19 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Labour Revision / Judgment
Outcome
Application partly succeeded.
Legal Topics
Unfair Termination, Jurisdiction of CMA, Employment Contract, Severance Pay, Compensation, Educational Support Agreement
Source Language
English
Labour Law Unfair Termination Jurisdiction of CMA Employment Contract Severance Pay Compensation Educational Support Agreement

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kastan Mining PLC

Applicant

Devota Salum

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Revision / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Arbitrator usurped the jurisdiction of the Labour Court by determining and issuing an award based on a finding of lockout.
  2. 2 Whether the Arbitrator legally made a finding that the parties' contract was void.
  3. 3 Whether the Arbitrator suo motto raised and determined the issue of constructive termination.

Ratio Decidendi

The Arbitrator did not make a finding of lockout as defined by law, did not declare the entire employment contract void but only the conflicting provision, and properly found that the respondent was unfairly terminated as there was no proof of resignation. The CMA had jurisdiction over the educational support agreement as it arose from the employment relationship. The award of severance pay and refund of Tshs. 400,000/= was set aside for lack of proof, and compensation was reduced to 10 months' salary.

Court Disposition

Application partly succeeded.

Orders

  • Refund of Tsh. 400,000/= and award of severance pay set aside.
  • Award of 12 months compensation reduced to 10 months.