19900209 TZHC Tabora

... ~ - J) {).J) o-rnA ll~ 'rH :, HI~H COU11T OF• T"~NZ1iNLi ,lT T1.J30RA APPELLATE ,- .J!SIHCTIO~T ·{ Tabora Registry) -~ (BC). Ci;HJrLw AITE)iL NO. 43 OF 1988 ORIGINAL Ci1IlH?",1L C,11S~ NO •.. 3J5 OF 1987 CI T1 n DI3T~UCT COUHT OF KIGO]~A DISTTIIGT AT KIGOMA ~efor.e: J .R. MTO'.D%1\ Bsq., Jlesident riragistrate .·. ~H.£11m~1iN jl'•i, sinrST.tiHY OF DU1C1 LA {1.AF1\NYAK.aZI ! .:.,_ :.. ' ( T) . 'LTD:•·,,_. e . 0 • • • ·• ;'. e •.• e ~ e ~ . C,. e e . e • • Al·t·ELL.cifTT f-, _ ' ' , . · - .- · · · 1 i • (original jccused) 1 Versus ~ . i~ . .,_._..... ~. _. . . ........ ··• .. ~·-~- IfB\~r9_NDE1'1T · '(Original rrosecutor) 9/2/9-0 1::· Kt)UOSSO,. J,, The :Appellcin't, the· I'likt1 la -..7afany.ik:.:1zi '1i15I ( T) Ltd, was represented by it, Chairnm 1.nt Secretary before the Resident , !ifagistrate' s Cou_rt. The .Appell3.nt was charged with and convioted - of having failed :to com.ply with the decision of the conciliation Board made on 18/!3,/87, ordering the ,:1ppclL1nt to re-instate in her employment an emrtoyee by the n3.me of Zer'.lh Ka#ege ,r.w.2). The Appell.:::mt aggrie~:ed by the CGcision of the lower Court has lodged this instant -appeal.• ~ ;I It j s col!'u:1on gyound that after the Appellant had terminated employment of one· Zer3.h Kahege (T'. W.1), then employed as a shopt M.!3.I1J.ger, · r. W.1 rc:~erred her termination to the conciliation Board which· ordered th3.t the AppellJ.nt shot1ld re-instate one Zerah ___.. . /Kahege (r.w.l) with effect from 18/8/87 .. Under the provieio•e ; of section 40 1\ ( ~) of the 7mploymGnt Ordinance as amended by Labour Laws 1'\C t w~ .l/13, either p irty to the d::_ spll te ret e:t"red -to ... /2. : .!- / :. I .. : ·r· . --~- '-, . .-. 2 1he Board :may appe'3.l. to the l'rrin:_ ster if J.ggrieved with the 1'oa.rd' s decision within 28 ·days. ., The issue before the lower Court• was whether the Appell-..:;..::/~ having not re-instated the Complain,swt (r. w,.1_) had appea:t-ed to the llfinister • . , .. ·:. I ani satisfied on the evidence that the learned trial ~lfagi- strate made a proper finding. rt is evident that the .Appell8.nt has not complied 'Ni th the;_ statutory requirement provided una·er . .. . ~ '.. the provisions of secti;on :40 A ( 3) of the TiTJ.ployment Ordinance . ' as a:rnen4Gd, - requiring .an q,ggrieved . . . _p..irty : . . to appeal to the }!finis •: ~ ter. The judgenent of the lower Court is dated 28/3/88 an0 the ·pett t:i.on_ ?f appeal is ·a·'lte·a· 7/51/88. If the AppelLmt had indeec. appealed, the result of the 3.llegea app·e'.ll wouJ.d have been out by 7/5/88 when the ·Appella.nt f;i.led. the :petition. 1-~oreover, as I write this appe'J.l toa 8.Y on 9/2/90, there is no information rec c.-~ - ved by this Court to the effect thit the resUlt of the alleged appeal hJ.s come cut~ 1\s the !1ppellJ.nt has refu.se-d to co:r.1ply with the de~.ision of the Conciliation Bo:i.rd, the Appellar)t r:JLi'@t irn-1:1ediate1.y pay the complainant (T'.W.1) in 3.ccordance with -£.he provisions of _section 40 J;' (5) (a) (i) (ii) of the ~ploYIJr:mt ·ordinance, as a.mended 0 . by the Labour L J.iNS ~·,ct ,:'o ~ 1/75 ~ . ;- .· I . . , .•. ., · ..Appeal dismissed. j :. 1crr~~. --~~Q_j.-> ·: -1 ,·.I