olafsson sequeira vs powerbank and backup ltd 2021 tzhcld 33 10 march 2021

olafsson sequeira vs powerbank and backup ltd 2021 tzhcld 33 10 march 2021

The CMA erred by dismissing the entire application as time-barred without considering that some claims were within time and that the breach was continuous. The applicant was denied the right to be heard on merits, constituting a miscarriage of justice. The ruling is quashed and the applicant is allowed to file the dispute at CMA within 45 days.

Citation
olafsson sequeira vs powerbank and backup ltd 2021 tzhcld 33 10 march 2021
Parties
Applicant: Olafsson Sequeira; Respondent: Power and Network Backup Ltd.
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
10 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Labour Revision / Judgment on Revision of Cma's Dismissal of Condonation Application
Outcome
Revision allowed; CMA ruling quashed and set aside.
Legal Topics
Unfair Labour Practices, Limitation of Actions, Natural Justice, Breach of Contract
Source Language
English
Labour Law Employment Law Unfair Labour Practices Limitation of Actions Natural Justice Breach of Contract

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Olafsson Sequeira

Applicant

Power and Network Backup Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Revision / Judgment on Revision of Cma's Dismissal of Condonation Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the mediator erred in law and fact by failing to observe that the breach of contract was continuous and not all claims were out of time
  2. 2 Whether the mediator erred in dismissing the whole suit as time barred despite different causes of action with different time limits
  3. 3 Whether the mediator erred in holding that promises to pay were not fulfilled

Ratio Decidendi

The CMA erred by dismissing the entire application as time-barred without considering that some claims were within time and that the breach was continuous. The applicant was denied the right to be heard on merits, constituting a miscarriage of justice. The ruling is quashed and the applicant is allowed to file the dispute at CMA within 45 days.

Court Disposition

Revision allowed; CMA ruling quashed and set aside.

Orders

  • Applicant to file dispute at CMA within 45 days from judgment date
  • Case to proceed at CMA at the stage reached by another arbitrator