ott on behalf of j kimaro and 163 others vs tanzania housing bank 1997 tzhc 196 15 may 1997

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA ( DAE ES SALAAM DISTRICT REGISTRY ) AT PAR ES BALAAM misca pIV^C^.NO.9^95 OTTU(ON BEHALF OF J.KIMAEO & 163 OTHERS .................. APPLICANTS ValRSUS TANZANIA HOUSING BANK ....... KSSPCNDJSNT R U L I N G. MSUMIt J . The matter started as employment case filed in the Industrial Court of Tanzania by the applicants. In that case applicants were challenging the decision of their employee, the respondent,of retrenching them. The case was dismised. In the present proceedings the applicants are asking for an extention of time to appeal to this court against the said - decision of the Industrial Court of Tanzania. The respondent which is represented by Mr Kalo?-->, advocate is contesting the application. Apart from arguing that applicants have n»& adduced sufficient reasons explaining the delay to file the appeal within the prescribed satutory period, the learned counsel for the respondent raised two legal issues against the application. First he contended that the affid­ avit of Victor Alfred Mlanzi purporting to support the application is incurably defective for nnt having verification clause. And secondly since an appeal to this court against the judgment of the Industrial C«urt is -onlyoconfined to allegation related to lack of jurisdiction, applicants should have attached to the chamber summons copy of the memorandum of intended ap^;al so that the court could know whether or not the applicants were chal' :ng the jurisdiction of the trial cnurt„ StaT'+J the first issue it is quite clear that the said affidavit does not contain verification. Taking into account the nature of the matter deponed,the doponent cannot claim that the same were from his own knowledge. They mup+ on information hence the necessity to reveal the sourse of the &aid information. For example the deponent claims that later on after the judgment was delivered he came to learn that one Job Mwambuma who had ^ '^r'cuting the case ^n their behalf had died and that the matter had ' assigned to one Jonathan before the applicants decided tp engage a private advocate. It is further deponed that the applicant's former advocate one Mh:: 1a went Abroad for studies. All these assertions must be based on infor"1"- ton whose source ought to have been revealed. The second is equally formidable. In considering this application, it is relevant 1 r this court t* satisfy itself that the intended appeal is. based on the allegation of lack of jurisdiction as the law provides. The only way the court could be able to satisfy itself on this question is by going through the memorandum of the intended appeal. The availability of the said copy of memorandum of intended appeal is even more necessary when taking into account that neither the affidavit nor the oral submission of the counsel for the applicants challenge the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court, From the above observations this -court is of the respectful opinion that the application is not legally tenaJale. It is- accordingly dismissed with costs, H„A. MSUMI JU D G E » .15/ 3/ 97. For the Applica®^'"'-* • Mkumbi For the Respondent : Kalolo.