MWANAHAWA OMARY HUSSEIN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA [ ARUSHA SUB- REGISTRY] AT ARUSHA APPLICATION FOR REVISION NO. 6460 OF 2024 (Original Dispute No. CMA/ARS/262/2023 of CMA Arusha before O. Mwebuga, Arbitrator) MWANAHAWA OMARY HUSSEIN.................................................. 1st APPLICATION SELEVESTER MAALIM WEGORO.................................................... 2nd APPLICATION FIDELIS FELIX URASSA.................................... 3ND APPLICATION FAUSTINE FADHILI DIONIZ........... .......... 4th APPLICATION MATHAYO BATI HHOKI.......................... 5th APPLICATION PHINA SHAIDA MUGALESA.................................................................................... 6thAPPLICATION MAGRETH ASSA LAMECK....................................................................................... 7thAPPLICATION AMINA JUMA NDUSU...............................................................8th APPLICATION MAGRETH MANYANGA MAGITA..................................................... 9th APPLICATION FRAZIA JACOB BULURYO................ 10th APPLICATION MARONGO JULIUS JAMES............................................. 11th APPLICATION VERSUS A TO Z TEXTILE MILLS LTD................................................................... RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 15/01/2025 & 20/02/2025 I.C. MUGETA, J; The applicant filed a case against the respondent at the CMA for Arusha. On 01/08/2023, they prayed to withdraw the dispute which had 1 been registered as CMA/ARS/ARS/149/2023/86/2023 in order to rectify a misjoinder of parties apparent in the application. The prayer was granted and the arbitrator stated: ".. I have no hesitation to grant the prayer sought by advocate for the complainants with leave to refi/e in accordance with the law" Then the arbitrator remarked: "This matter is marked withdrawn with leave to refile within seven days. It is so ordered this 1st day ofAugust 2023". Finally, the arbitrator delivered the order in the following manner. "This order is signed and delivered this 3rd day ofAugust, 2023". My understanding of the above flow of events is that the order was prepared on 01/08/2023 but was delivered on 03/08/2023 which turns out to be the effective date. On 07/08/2023, the applicants filed the application for condonation which the Arbitration dismissed for want of a good cause for the delay and accounting for each day of the delay, hence, this application. 2 The grounds of complaint in the application are somewhat obscured. However, I can decipher the applicants' concern to be; that the arbitrator failed to appreciate that the complaint he dismissed was filed in time. The application was argued by way of filing written submissions. The arguments in both parties' submissions are as rambling as the impugned decision. On that account, I shall approach the complaint from my understanding of the facts on record. It is my view that fifing the application for condonation by the applicants was an oversight because when it was filed on 7/8/2023, time within which to refile the dispute which was withdrawn with leave to refile had not expired counting either from 1/08/2023 or 3/8/2023 whichever is the date when the dispute was marked withdrawn. Instead of filing the applications for condonation, the applicants ought to have filed the dispute with the requisite amendment per the withdrawal order. At page 5 of the ruling, the arbitrator found that the filing of the application was delayed for 120 days. He failed to distinguish that the application was for condonation and not a dispute in itself. An application for condonation asking for extension of time to perform a specific act cannot be time barred as held by the arbitrator. However, the same was incompetent because it did not conform with the order which followed the 3 withdrawal. The order concerned filing a dispute not application for condonation. The arbitrator ought to have struck it out for incompetence rather than for being time barred failure to show a good cause of delay and accounting for each day of the delay. What do I do under the circumstances? The applicants are lay persons who are trying to pursue their rights without proper legal representation. This is the reason for their messing up the procedures. I can not condemn them for such incapacity. Justice demands for the unblocking of their way in pursuit of justice. However, time to do so has expired. In the interest of justice, I extend it and further I order that they should refile the dispute within 30 days from the date of this order. I. C. MUGETA JUDGE 20/02/2025 Court: Judgment delivered in the absence of the applicant and the respondent but in the presence of Herode Bilyamtwe, personal representative of the applicants. Sgd: I. C. MUGETA JUDGE 20/02/2025 4