pcmc health care limited vs amina twaha mgaya 2022 tzhcld 919 19 september 2022
The applicant failed to provide sufficient and credible reasons for non-attendance on two consecutive dates; negligence or lack of diligence by a party or advocate is not protected by the law.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- pcmc health care limited vs amina twaha mgaya 2022 tzhcld 919 19 september 2022
- Parties
- Applicant: PCMC Health Care Limited; Respondent: Amina Twaha Mgaya
- Court
- TANZLII
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 19 September 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Labour Revision / Ruling on Application for Restoration of Dismissed Case
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Restoration of Dismissed Suit, Absence of Party, Court Procedure
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
PCMC Health Care Limited
Applicant
Amina Twaha Mgaya
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Labour Revision / Ruling on Application for Restoration of Dismissed Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause for restoration of the dismissed case
- 2 Whether absence of the applicant's advocate on two occasions was justified
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant failed to provide sufficient and credible reasons for non-attendance on two consecutive dates; negligence or lack of diligence by a party or advocate is not protected by the law.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- Each party to bear its own costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
MAHAKAMA KUU YA TANZANIA DIVISHENI YA KAZI PAR ES SALAAM MAREJEO NA. 286 YA 2022 PCMC HEALTH CARE LIMITED......................... MLETA MAOMBI DHIDI YA AMINA TWAHA MGAYA.................................... MJIBU MAOMBI (Kutokana na Uamuzi wa Tume ya Ushuluhishi na Uamuzi kanda ya DSM-1&) (Igogo: Muamuzi) A W Tarehe 17. 09. 2021 W katika CMA/DSM/ILA/R.381/3p20/^94 •— —> !■ —— —— ■_ _ —— _ _ _ UAMUZIMDOGO W 19.09.2022 ' Rwizile, J Haya ni maombi ya kutakab^ irejeshe shauri No. 411/2021, lililofutwa na Mahakama haya tarehe 13.07.2022 sababu za kufutwa ilikuwa ni mleta maombi kutofika Mahakamani kuendesha shauri lake mara mbili. Kama ilivybada, maombi haya yameletwa na kuambatana na kiapo cha mleta maombi. Maombi haya yamepingwa pia na kiapo cha mjibu maombi. Wakili Ndugu Eneza Msuya, amemwakilisha mleta maombi na ameeleza sababu zake kwamba shauri lilifutwa baada ya yeye kupoteza mawasiliano na Mahakama. i Ameeleeza kuwa tarehe 07.06.2022, shauri liliitwa mbele ya Naibu Msajili na kupangwa kusikilizwa tarehe 14.07.2022 alipofika tarehe hiyo, alipata taarifa kuwa shauri lilifutwa tarehe 13.07.2022. Kwa sababu hiyo, aliomba kwa kuzingatia shauri la Rashid Athmani dhidi ya DPP, maombi ya jinai Na. 20/15/2019 maombi haya yakubaliwe kwa minajili ya.haki. Mjibu maombi ambaye amewakilishwa na ndugu Mhandp kutoka Chama cha Wafanyakazi (TALOTU) alisema mleta maombi hakbh:udhy(i^inahakamani mara mbili mfululizo bila sababu, hivyo maon^t yake^hayana msingi. Baada ya kusikiliza mawasilisho ya; panad<mbili, ninawiwa kupitia kumbukumbu za shauri Namba 411/2021. :Inaonekana kwamba mnamo tarehe 21.04.2022 shauri liliitwa mbele ya Naibu Msajili wa Mahakama haya na kupangwa kusikiliza tarehe' 07.06.2022 saa tano asubuhi. Tarehe hiyo shauri liliitwa t§na mbelp ya Naibu Msajili. Mleta maombi hata hivyo hakuwepo tarehe hiyo,-shaun lilipangwa kusikilizwa tarehe 13.07.2022, saa tano asubuhi mleta maombi hakuwepo pia. Hii inamaanisha kwamba ni mleta maombi ambaye hakufika Mahakamani mara mbili bila taarifa. Waklli wake anasema, kulikuwepo mgongano wa tarehe. Amejitetea pia kwamba alifika tarehe 07.06.2022 na kuambiwa kuwa shauri lilipangwa tarehe 14.07.2022, hata hivyo aliambiwa na karani kwamba lilikuwa limefutwe 2 tarehe 13.07.2022. Ni kwa bahati mbaya pia kwamba karani huyo hakutajwa jina na pia hakueleza katika kiapo chake kuwa alimwomba karani huyo aandae kiapo lakini hakukubali. Ni wazi kwamba, utaratibu wa kupangwa na kusikilizwa mashauri katika Mahakama haya uko wazi. Kama mjibu maombi mara zote.:hiigoMkuwepo Mahakamani na alisikia tarehe na muda na kuhudh^ria-stja^pWeje kwa Wakili wa mleta maombi. Hii inanipa shaka kwStpW^mleta maombi alikuwa mzembe. Inawezekana alikuwa anqfika amechelewa au alikuwa hafiki kabisa. Kufika Mahakamani kwa muda^n^ targhehliyopagwa ni swala la msingi. Heshima ya Wakili ipp pale arnbapo atajali mashauri ya wateja wake, muda wake na wao na muda wa Mahakama kutozingatiwa kwa utaratibu wa kufika Maharai^ifil^ai^^lnavyoagizwa na kitendo cha utoro wa nidhamu. Katika shad'ri la Rashid Ramadhani Mahakama ya Rufani ilisema haki iangaliwe. Lakini kwa kawaida haki ni ya pande zote mbili haiwezekani mtu au Wakili mzembe akadai haki ya kulindwa na sheria. Mara zote haki haitaki uzembe. 3 Kwa sababu hiyo, maombi haya, hayana mashiko, yanafutwa kila upande utajilipa gharama zake. A.K.Rwizile JAJI 19.09.2022 4