image0017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (MOROGORO SUB - REGISTRY) AT MOROGORO MISC. LABOUR APPLICATION NO. 24709 OF 2024 MOROGORO INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL AND BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF MOROGORO INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL APPLICANTS VERSUS MICHELLE MASSEY AND JOHN ANDREW MASSEY RESPONDENTS RULING 13/11/2024 KINYAKA, J.: The present application Is for enlargement of time within which to lodge an application for revision to this Court against the award of the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration for Mororgoro hereinafter, the "CMA"in Labour Dispute No. CMA/MOR/77 & 80/2023 deiivered on 25^^ Aprii 2023. The appiication is predicated under section 94(1)(e)of the Employment and Labour Relations Act Cap. 366 R.E. 2019 and Rules 56(1)(3), 24 (1), 24(2) (a),(b),(c),(d),(e),(0, 24(3)(a),(b),(c),(d), 24(11)(b)of Labour Court Rules G.N. No. 106 of 2017, and supported by an affidavit deponed by Miriam Gondwe, the principal officer of the applicant From what is gathered from the available records, on August 2021, the applicant entered into a fixed term contract of employment with the respondents which was to end on 12^^ August 2023. In the said contract, the first respondent was employed as a school manager whereas the second respondent was employed as a school teacher. On 12^^^ day of August 2022, the applicant and the respondents entered into a mutual agreement to terminate the respondents' employment contract. According to the Release Covenant and Non-Disclosure Agreement annexed to the instant application, it was agreed that in consideration of the respondents' termination, the applicants were among other terms, obliged to cover the respondents'three and a half months'salaries equivalent to US$ 8,034. According to the records, the applicant initiated the payment but withheld the Pay as you Earn Tax (PAYE)to be paid to the government, the act which aggrieved the respondents who decided to present to the applicant the notice of mutual termination of employment. In response to the said notice, the applicant withheld all payments until the issue regarding the PAYE is sorted completely. Displeased with the applicant's move, the respondents approached the CMA claiming reliefs for unfair termination through Labour Disputes No. CMA/MOR/77/2023 and CMA/MOR/80/2023 which were thereafter consolidated and adjudicated in favour of the respondents. The applicants were aggrieved by the decision of the CMA. As such, on 19^^ May 2024, she filed Labour Revision No. 07 of 2023 seeking to assail the said decision. However, the application faced opposition from the respondents through preliminary objections on three points of law. It was the second preliminary objection on point of law that was sustained by this Court culminating to the striking out of the revision for incompetence. In her further attempt to have the CMA award revised, the applicant through the legal service of Advocate Shukrani Mzikila, preferred the present application upon noticing that the applicants were already barred by time limitation from instituting the revision before this Court. Justifying the delay, the applicant averred under paragraphs 4.9 of her affidavit that the delay was not caused by negligence because the previous application registered as Labour Revision Application No. 7 of 2023 was filed within time on 19^^ May 2023 and that the applicants diligently prosecuted the revision which was struck out on technical defects. On their part, the respondent did not file the counter affidavit in response to the applicant's application. When the matter was placed before me for necessary orders on 13^^ November 2024, the applicants were represented by Mr. Shukran Mziklla. Advocate Michael Mwambanga who appeared virtually represented the respondents. Relying on the contents of the affidavit in support of the application, Mr. Mzikila beseeched the Court to grant the extension of time as in his view, if the same will be refused by the court, great injustice, illegality, and Irreparable loss will be occasioned to her as the revision has the great chance of success. On part of the respondents, Mr. Mwambaga informed the Court that the respondents were not opposing the application. I have considered the applicant's averments in her affidavit in support of the application. While I am mindful of the fact that the present application is uncontested by the respondents as hinted above, I deem it necessary to have the grounds in support of the application scrutinized in a bid to determine whether the same constitute sufficient cause warranting the Court's grant of the prayer for extension of time. In so doing, I have considered the settled law that the court's powers in granting the foregoing i prayers are purely discretionary which must be exercised judiciously subject to a sufficient cause being demonstrated. In Shabani Mohamed Mwanambingu, Civil Appeal No. 177 of 2021 [2024] TZCA 564(16 July 2024), the court on page 6 to 7 held: "It Is settled law that the court can only grant extension oftime, Ifthe appellant shows sufficient cause. In Shanti v. Hindocha & Others[1973]E.A. 207, the Erstwhile Court ofAppealfor East Africa considered similar phrase, "sufficient cause"and defined It to mean the cause which Is convincingly beyond the applicant's control, that Is to say: the more persuasive reason that he can show Is that the delay has not been caused or contributed by dilatory conduct on his part. But that Is not the only reason." In the present application, the applicant pegged technical delay as a sufficient cause as deponed in paragraphs 4.6, 4.7 and 4.9. She highlighted that the original revision application was lodged before the Court within time but she found herself out of time to lodge a fresh application following the striking out order of this Court in relation to the original application which was found to be incompetent. Admittedly, the applicant has managed to justify his delay from the 25^^ day of August 2023 when the decision the subject matter of intended revision c was delivered by the CMA, to 3^^ October 2023 in which the instant application for extension of time was lodged. I am therefore convinced without doubts that the applicant has been amply able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Court that her delay to file the intended application was not inordinate but technical one [See the case of Fortunatus Masha V. William Shija & Another (1997) TLR 154 on page 155]. I have also considered the fact that the present matter was lodged by the applicants promptly on 3'^ October 2024 immediately after the striking out of the revision by this Court on 26^^ September 2024. In view of the above, and considering that the application was not opposed by the respondents, I grant the applicants thirty (30) days from the date of this ruling to lodge their intended application for revision. Considering the matter stems from a labour dispute, I make no orders for costs. It is so ordered. Right of appeal to the Court of Appeal fully explained. DATED at MOROGORO this D'-^day of November 2024. H. A. KINY^KA JUDGE 13/11/2024 6