kiribo limited vs simoni mwita mlagani and mangengi monata 2021 tzhc 3384 31 may 2021
- Citation
- kiribo limited vs simoni mwita mlagani and mangengi monata 2021 tzhc 3384 31 may 2021
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 31 May 2021
- Posture
- Labour Application / Ruling on Application for Restoration of Dismissed Application
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TZHC
- Decision
- 31 May 2021
- Posture
- Labour Application / Ruling on Application for Restoration of Dismissed Application
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The applicant was misled by the judiciary electronic database system, which showed a different hearing date than the court record. This constituted sufficient reason for non-appearance, justifying restoration of the dismissed application.
Court disposition
Application allowed
Orders
- Dismissal order set aside
- Application to be heard inter-partes
- No order as to costs
02
Material facts
Parties
Kiribo Limited
ApplicantSimon Mwita Mlagani
1st Respondent Counsel: Mr. StephenMang'eng'i Monata
2nd Respondent Counsel: Mr. Stephen03
Procedural history
Posture
Labour Application / Ruling on Application for Restoration of Dismissed Application
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant had sufficient reason for non-appearance when the application was dismissed
- 02
Whether discrepancy between court record and electronic system constitutes sufficient cause
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that the judiciary electronic system showed the hearing date as 18/3/2021, but the application was dismissed on 15/3/2021, leading to non-appearance.
- Respondent
- The respondent's advocate did not oppose the application.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Court's reasoning in the present ruling
Sufficient cause for non-appearance may be established where a party is misled by official court information.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The applicant was misled by the judiciary electronic database system, which showed a different hearing date than the court record. This constituted sufficient reason for non-appearance, justifying restoration of the dismissed application.
Obiter and limits
- The information in the electronic system should mirror the information in the court record.
Court disposition
Application allowed
- Dismissal order set aside
- Application to be heard inter-partes
- No order as to costs
Source and reliance status
TZHC · 31 May 2021
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
TZHC
Judgment· 31 May 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA
IN THE DISTRICT REGISTRY OF MUSOMA
AT MUSOMA APPLICATION FOR LABOUR NO 7 OF 2021 KIRIBO LIMITED............................................................ APPLICANT
VERSUS SIMON MWITA MLAGANI....................................... 1st RESPONDENT MANG'ENG'I MONATA.......................................... 2nd RESPONDENT (Arising from Labour Application No. 22 of2021)
RULING 31st May, 2021 Kahyoza, J The applicant seeks to restore Misc Appl No. 22/2020 which was dismissed on the 15/3/2021. The applicant has advanced one ground to support his application that, the system showed that the application was fixed on 18/3/2021 and he came to court to attend the hearing. However, the application was dismissed on 15/3/2021. The respondent advocate Mr. Stephen, did not oppose the application. I examined the record and found that the application after it was filed the court fixed it for hearing on 15/3/2021. The court issued the order for hearing on the 29/12/2020. However the applicant deponed and submitted that electronic system showed that the case was fixed for hearing on the 18/3/2021 and not 15/3/2021. Thus, the date in the court's record differed with the date indicated in the judiciary electronic database i system. I have scrutinized the entry in the system and found as submitted by the applicant's representative that Misc Labour Appl No. 22/2020 was fixed on 18/3/2021. For that reason, the information in the electronic system did not tally with the information in the Court records. The information in the electronic system was required to minor the information in the court record. I, therefore, find that the applicant was mislead, she appeared on the 18/3/2021 instead of 15/3/2021 when the matter came for hearing. I find that the applicant is
not to blame. This Court was proper to dismiss the application as it did but, since the applicant was mislead by the information is the judiciary electronic database system. I find that she has adduced sufficient reason. In the end, I allow the application, sit aside the dismissal order and direct the application to be heard inter-partes. It is ordered accordingly. No order as to costs. n____ J. R. Kahyoza
JUDGE 31/5/2021 Court: Ruling delivered. J. R. Kahyoza 3UDGE i 31/5/2021 ”* 7^
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.