rehema omari vs ardhi university 2022 tzhcld 236 11 may 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA LABOUR DIVISION AT PAR ES SALAAM LABOUR REVISION NO. 474 OF 2021 BETWEEN REHEMA OMARI NKUU APPLICANT VERSUS ARDHI UNIVERSITY. RESPONDENT JUDGMENT This is an application seeking for R^iSi^bj^MA decision in Labour Dispute No. CCMA/DSM/KIN^525/^^ivered on 16/05/2018. In . V. j that decision, the Arbitrator, J. Gerald held that CMA did not have jurisdiction to enteijair^h^matter due to the amendment of the Public Service Act wnkh^was amended by S. 26 of the Written Law (Miscellaneous Atjienument) (No. 3) Act 2016 which amended S. 32A rqf^he PubnjService Act which excluded the CMA from having power to detepiine matters related to public servants. The applicant filed the application with 3 issues, 2 of them addressing the jurisdiction of the CMA. i Due to the nature and sensitivity of jurisdiction, the court called upon parties to address the issue of jurisdiction before proceeding with the other issues of the application. On the date the matter fixed for hearing of parties, Mr. Hemed Omar, Personal Representative notified the court that he is not intending to waste the court's precious time in something alre^Cse^^bv %ie Court of Appeal. He cited the case of Tanzania Posts Corporation Vs. Dominic Kalangi and states that it is^aiready. settied there in that this court has no jurisdiction to tntertairvmatters concerning public servants. He therefore^^ye^^^^^raw the application with this court leave to allow the^applicaht to pursue his claim vide a proper forum. Mr. Ayoub, State Attorneyjdisputed withdrawal of the application on ground tffat since^the court has no jurisdiction, the application is ;im pro per ^before the court and something which is wrongly lodged cannot be>withdrawn by a party who brought it but only by the court. He further disputed power of the court to grant leave to applicant to pursue the matter in proper forum. Having considered parties submission, I appreciate Mr. Hemed Omar, Personal Representative for his wisdom of not wasting the precious 2 time of parties and the court by conceding to what is obvious I congratulate the spirit which is a good professional conduct amended for the legal fraternity. However I cannot agree with his two prayer. To start with withdraw, there was already a court direction for the parties to address the court on the matter. It is my consideration that the application is heard, and a judgment need tofbe obstructed. At this stage the applicant cannot withdraw the matter.^^ WF With regards to leave to the applicant to pujfue neydaims through the public service commission. Since^his^court does not have jurisdiction in the matter. ^^^^^rjurisdiction, the court cannot give any order other tnai^f^order raising and intending to address that issue of jui^^ction. This prayer as well fails. Having said so,^^^^l^^emed Omar, Personal Representative of the applicant®icedes to the fact that CMA did not have jurisdiction, ^dir^^^^^hgth of the Court of Appeal decision in Tanzania Posts Conporatipn supra, I find this court lacking jurisdiction in the matter and dismiss the application accordingly. It is so order. KATARINA REVOCATI MTEULE JUDGE 11/05/2022