pongwa o matibwa vs ramadhani o kitogo 2020 tzhcld 173 5 june 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA LABOUR DIVISION AT PAR ES SALAAM REVISION NO. 524 OF 2019 BETWEEN PONGWA O. MATIBWA....................................... APPLICANT VERSUS RAMADHANI O. KITOGO...................................RESPONDENT RULING Date o fLast Order: 26/05/2020 Date o fJudgem ent: 05/06/2020 Aboud. 3. This is an application to revise and set aside the whole proceedings and award of the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration (herein CMA) dated 16/02/2017 in Labour dispute No. CMA/DSM/ILA/R.379/17. The provision of section 91 (1) (a) 91 (2)(b) of section 94 (1) (b) (i) [CAP 366 RE 2019] Rule 24 (1), 24 (2) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) and (f), Rule 24 (3) (a) (b) (c) (d) and 28 (1) (a)(c)(d)(e) of the Labour Court Rules GN No. 106 of 2007 (herein referred as the Labour Court Rules). The respondent vehemently opposed the application through notice of preliminary objection (PO) on point of law to the effect that:- i. That the application for revision is time barred. ii. That the Honourable Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. During hearing the applicant appeared in person while the respondent enjoyed the services of Ms. Aisha Ahmed Bwasheikh, learned Counsel. The court ordered hearing of preliminary objection to proceed by way of written submissions. Unfortunately in their submissions, the parties did not argue on the PO raised, they only submitted to the main application hence the court had to resort on the records available. The present application was prior filed as Revision No. 23 of 2018 which on 23/05/2019 was struck out for being incompetent before the court because it contravened the requirement of Rule 24 (3) of the Labour Court Rules and Order VI Rule 15 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code [CAP 33 RE 2002]. However, the Court granted leave to the applicant to file proper application within fourteen (14) days from the order. Following the above Court's order the applicant filed the present application on 07/06/2019, which was 16 days from the date of the order. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the applicant did not comply with the court's order of filling this application within 14 days. It has been discussed in a number of cases that limitation is there to speedup administration of justice and to limit the parties not to bring litigation at their own whims. This position was firmly stated in the case of Dr. Ally Shabhay vs. Tanga Bohora Jamaat [1997] TLR 305 where it was held that: "It is settled law that those who seek justice in court of law must file proceedings within the prescribed time, otherwise they will face the law of limitation as a bar. Parties cannot conduct litigation as they deem fit. Limitation clause is there to speed truck proceedings. To the contrary, court will have endless litigations at the whims of the parties". The position was restated in the case of Tanzania Fish Processors Ltd vs. Christopher Luhangula, Civil Appeal No 161/1994 Court of Appeal of Tanzania, at Mwanza registry the court held that: "the question of Limitation of time is fundamental issue involving jurisdiction ...it goes to the very root of dealing with civil claims, limitation is a material point in the speedy administration of justice. Limitation is there to ensure that a party does not come to Court as and when he wishes". In the matter at hand the applicant was granted fourteen (14) days to re-file proper application. On his own whims he re-filed the application after sixteen days from the order. Such a conduct cannot be entertained by this court, by allowing a party to come to court when he wishes. Certainly to allow such conduct by parties will cause a situation where there will be endless disputes which defeat the object of our labour laws. The applicant was required to adhere to the court's order; however he did not do so or even bothered to apply for extension of time before filling this application. The law requires that, when a party delays to file an application he/she should first apply to the court to extend time to file his application. This position of the law have been discussed in a number of cases including the case of DED Sengerema D/Council Vs. Peter Msungu & 13 Others, Lab. Div. Mwanza, Misc. Appl. No. 27/2013 (unreported) Rweyemamu J. held that:- "When an action is time barred a party seeking to initiate it must first apply for extension of time. That the applicant did not do, consequently, I find this application incompetent and dismiss it as per the requirement of the law and practice". Under the circumstance, I find the present application was filed out of time given by the Court on 23/05/2019. Hence the first preliminary objection raised by the respondent has merit and is sustained. In the result the application is dismissed accordingly. It is so ordered. I.D. Aboud JUDGE 05/ 06/2020