Download PDF

Tanzania Judgment

TZHC

lea associates south asia pvt ltd vs burton sospeter 2023 tzhc 19333 25 july 2023

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The interest of justice demands that execution be stayed because the award is subject to a pending revision before the court.

Court disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Execution of the decree is stayed pending final determination of Labour Revision No. 07/2022
  • No order as to costs

02

Material facts

Parties

LEA ASSOCIATES SOUTH ASIA PVT LTD

Applicant Counsel: John Laswai

BURTON SOSPETER

Respondent Counsel: Kanani Chombala

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Miscellaneous Labour Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Whether execution of the CMA award should be stayed pending determination of Labour Revision No. 7/2022

Party arguments

Applicant
Applicant seeks stay of execution of the CMA award pending outcome of Labour Revision No. 7/2022.
Respondent
Respondent agrees that stay should be granted due to pending revision.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Court's reasoning

    Interest of justice requires stay of execution when the decree is subject to pending revision.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The interest of justice demands that execution be stayed because the award is subject to a pending revision before the court.

Obiter and limits

  • It would be awkward for the respondents to proceed with execution of the decree which is subject on Revision (appeal).

Court disposition

Application granted

  • Execution of the decree is stayed pending final determination of Labour Revision No. 07/2022
  • No order as to costs

Source and reliance status

TZHC · 25 July 2023

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.

Source document

TZHC

Judgment· 25 July 2023

lea associates south asia pvt ltd vs burton sospeter 2023 tzhc 19333 25 july 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

IN THE DISTRICT REGISTRY OF TABORA

AT TABORA MISC. LABOUR APPLICATION NO. 3 OF 2022 (Originating from CMA/TAB/SKNG/102/2020/20) LEA ASSOCIATES SOUTH ASIA PVT LTD................... APPLICANT

VERSUS BURTON SOSPETER............................................... RESPONDENT

RULING Date of Last Order: 25/07/2023 Date of Ruling: 25/07/2023 MATUMA, J. In this Application the Applicant is seeking for stay of execution of the award of Commission for Mediation and Arbitration in Labour dispute no. CMA/TAB/SKNG/102/2020/20 dated 31/03/2022. The Application is made to enable the execution be stayed pending the outcome of the main application in Labour Revision no. 7/2022 which is pending in this court. Mr. John Laswai learned advocate appeared for the Applicant while Mr. Kanani Chombala Learned advocate appeared for the respondent. i Both parties were in an agreement that since there is a pending Revision in this court, the interest of justice requires that this application be granted. I agree with the learned advocates that indeed the interest of justice demands the grant of this application because the award intended to be executed is the subject in Labour Revision no. 7/2022 supra. It would be awkward for the respondents to proceed with the execution of the decree which is subject on Revision (appeal). I therefore grant the prayer and order that execution in the herein above named decree be stayed pending the final determination of Labour Revision no. 07/2022 in this court. No orders as to cost red.

UMA

JUDGE 25/07/2023 Court: Ruling delivered in chambers in the presence of Mr. John Laswai and Mr. Kanani arned advocates for the applicant and respondent respecti

UMA

JUDGE 25/07/2023 2

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.