michael nyanchini vs heritage secondary school 2021 tzhcld 32 3 march 2021

michael nyanchini vs heritage secondary school 2021 tzhcld 32 3 march 2021

The CMA's order striking out the application for non-exhaustion of local remedies was not interlocutory as it finally determined the applicant's right to proceed before the CMA. Clause 9 of the contract did not apply to the applicant's claim, which was for breach of contract, not a disciplinary penalty. Therefore, the applicant was entitled to file his claim before the CMA, and the application was not premature.

Citation
michael nyanchini vs heritage secondary school 2021 tzhcld 32 3 march 2021
Parties
Applicant: Michael Nyanchini; Respondent: Heritage Secondary School
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
3 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Labour Revision / Judgment on Revision of CMA Ruling
Outcome
Application allowed
Legal Topics
Premature Filing, Exhaustion of Remedies, Employment Termination, Jurisdiction of CMA
Source Language
English
Labour Law Premature Filing Exhaustion of Remedies Employment Termination Jurisdiction of CMA

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 1 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Nyanchini

Applicant

Heritage Secondary School

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Revision / Judgment on Revision of CMA Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application is incompetent for originating from an interlocutory order
  2. 2 Whether the applicant prematurely filed his complaint before CMA

Ratio Decidendi

The CMA's order striking out the application for non-exhaustion of local remedies was not interlocutory as it finally determined the applicant's right to proceed before the CMA. Clause 9 of the contract did not apply to the applicant's claim, which was for breach of contract, not a disciplinary penalty. Therefore, the applicant was entitled to file his claim before the CMA, and the application was not premature.

Court Disposition

Application allowed

Orders

  • CMA's ruling quashed and set aside
  • Records remitted to CMA Kibaha to be heard by another arbitrator within thirty days