knight support t limited vs ahsante mahundi 2014 tzhc 2342 17 september 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA LABOUR DIVISION AT PAR ES SALAAM MISC. LABOUR APPLICATION N0.30 OF 2014 KNIGHT SUPPORT (T) LIMITED .......................... APPLICANT VERSUS S»JP: AHSANTE MAHUNDI............................................. RESPONDENT ‘■’/ i * VS> mw v- . RULING 02/ 07/2014 & 17/ 09/2014 odSS&v, % Aboud. 3 The application is made under section 56 (1) (3) together with Rule 24 (2) (2) (3) of the Labour Court Rules GN. No. 106 of .$jv vfeu 2007 and any other enabling provision of the law. The applicant calls upon this court to grant the following orders; ■yp. V.; 1. That this-Honourable court be pleased to enlarge time and % ';j qf < y/ allow the applicant herein to file application for revision SM.. against the decision of Hon. Sehemba, of December, 2010 in the Labour Dispute No. CMA/DSM/KIN/557/09/278 out of time. 2. That this Court be pleased to grant any other necessary orders that deems fit and just to grant. Both parties were represented. Mr. Mbogoro, learned counsel represented the applicant while Mr. Katerega Personal Representative, represented the respondent. The court ordered parties to argue the application by way of written submission which both parties complied with. Arguing the application Mr. Mbogoro, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant submitted that the proceedings at CMA were concluded on 6/12/2010 and the award which is intended to be challenged was delivered on 23/4/2012. Advancing the reasons for delay to file application out of time he said, the award % % was not delivered to the parties within the time prescribed under Section 88 (9) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act, No. 6/2004. He said, the applicant was making follow up but the ’''i award was delivered in their absence so the applicant was not aware when the award was delivered. He therefore prayed for the application to be granted. Opposing the applicant submission Mr. Katerega for the : respondent submitted that, it is not true that parties were not aware of the award. He said the award was late procured because the presiding Arbitrator resigned the fact which even the applicant is aware of. Mr. Katerega submitted that the applicant has no good reason for his delay and prayed for the court to dismiss the application. I have gone through parties submissions as well as court record and find the issue for determination is whether the applicant adduced sufficient cause to be granted the application sought. It is an established principle in law that sufficient reason is a pre-condition for the court to grant extension of time. Rule 56 (1) of the Labour Court Rules G.N. 106 of 2007, which will be referred as Rules in this ruling provides that; "The c o u rt m a y e x te n d o r a b rid g e a n y p e rio d p re s c rib e d b y th e se ru le s on a p p lic a tio n a n d on g o o d cau se sh ow n , u n le ss th e C o u rt is p re clu d e d fro m d o in g tso b y a n y w ritte n la w ." 1W. || r*£, J" And what constitute sufficient reason or good cause has been defined in the case of Tanga C em ent C om pany Ltd . Vs. v-U -M ’’ . Ju m an n e M asan g w a & A n o th e r, C iv il A p p lic a tio n N o. 6 o f 2001, H C, D a r e s S alaa m (u n re p o rte d ), where the court held that; "W h at a m o u n t to s u ffic ie n t cau se h a d b e e n d e fin e d . From d e cid e d ca se s a n u m b e r o f fa c to rs h ave to b e ta ke n in to a c c o u n t fa c to rs h ave to b e ta k e n in to a c c o u n t in c lu d in g w h e th e r o r n o t th e a p p lic a tio n h a s been b ro u g h t p ro m p tly , th e a b se n ce o f a n y o r v a lid e x p la n a tio n fo r th e d e la y , la c k o f d ilig e n t on p a t o f th e a p p lic a n t" The above positing of the law has been confirmed by the Court of Appeal in the case of Jo h n m o sse s a n d Three o th e rs vs. th e R e p u b lic , C rim in a l A p p e a l N o. 1 4 5 o f 2 0 0 6 , when % '% quoting the position of that court in. the case of E lia s M sonde vs. R e p u b lic, C rim in a l A p p e a l No. 9 3 o f 2 0 0 5 , Mandia, J.A held that:- . %, J ■0$r ■t- "W e n e e d n o t b e la b o r, th e fa c t th a t it is n o w s e ttle d la w th a t in a p p lic a tio n s fo r '•e x te n sio n 'p f tim e to d o a n a c t re q u ire d b y lavv, a ll th a t is e xp e cte d o f th e a p p lic a n t is to sh o w th a t h e w as p r e v e n te d b y s u ffic ie n t o r re a so n a b le o r g o o d ca u se a n d th a t th e d e la y w as n o t ca u se d or c o n trib u te d by d ila to ry co n d u ct o r la c k o f d ilig e n c e on h is p a rt" After considering the reason advanced by the applicant I am of the view that the applicant's delay to file his revision within time was not contributed by dilatory conduct on his part. It is clear from the records that the proceedings regarding the case were concluded on 6/12/2010 where parties were ordered to file their final submissions on 20/12/2010 and the award was on notice. The award was delivered on 23/4/2012 more than a year after the proceedings were completed. More to that, there is no it' & S:»'' record in the CMA proceedings which shows that parties were informed regarding the award. Moreover it is clear that a party has six weeks within which he can file an application for revision, the copy of the procured award. On that bass I agree with the V%* applicant that he has a good reason for his delay to file the In the circumstance of this case, I am of the view that the 'V : applicant has adduced sufficient reason for the delay, therefore he can benefit from Rule 56 of the Labour Court Rules. In that regard the application is found to have merit. In the result the applicc" 3UDGE 17/09/2014 Date: 17/09/2014 Coram: Hon. I.D.Aboud,J Applicant: For Applicant: Mr. Mdemu, Advocate Respondent: For Respondent: Mr. Samy Katerega CC: G. Mushi jp \ Order: Ruling delivered on 17/09/2014 in the presence of Mr. Mdemu, Advocate for the Applicant and Mr. Samy Katerega ,#*• f \ “ Personal Representative of t ie Respondent. f \ JUDGE 17/09/2014