Werema

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA TABORA SUB REGISTRY AT TABORA MISC. LABOUR APPLICATION NO. 6 OF 2023 (From the decision of the High Court of Tanzania, Tabora sub registry in Labour Revision No. 19 of 2020 Original Labour Dispute No.CMA/TA/TBR MJN/Misc/25/2019 CMA at Tabora) RICHARD GEORGE WEREMA................................ APPLICANT VERSUS TANZANIA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (TANESCO).................................................................. RESPONDENT RULING Last order: 23/05/2024 Ruling date: 05/07/2024 MANGO, J The Applicant filed the application at hand by way of a Chamber Summons made under Rules 24(1), 24(2)(a-f) 24(3)(a-d), 55(1) and 56(1) of the Labour Court Rules, 2007,(GN 106 of 2007) seeking extension of time to file revision against the decision of the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration in labour dispute No. CMA/TA/TBR MJN/Misc/25/2019. The Application is supported by an affidavit sworn by Lucas M. Ndanga, the Applicant's advocate. The Respondent contests grant of the order sought in chamber summons. She filed a notice of opposition and a counter affidavit sworn by Norbert Bedder, the Respondent's advocate. On 23rd March when the application was called on for hearing, the Court granted leave for the application to be heard by way of written submissions. I am grateful to the counsel who represented parties in this application for their compliance with the schedule of submissions. Submitting in support of the application, Advocate Lucas Ndanga submitted that, the Applicant acted diligently in pursuing this matter and the delay was caused by prosecuting other cases related to the application at hand. He also averred that, the intended Revision has overwhelming chances of success. In his reply submission, Mr. Samwel Mahuma, learned state attorney challenged the application for seeking to refile a suit which has already been determined by this Court. He argued that, the revision upon which extension of time is sought was dismissed by this Court for being time barred. He also submitted that, the Applicant appealed to the Court of appeal and he ended up withdrawing the appeal for being misconceived. In his rejoinder, the Applicant's counsel conceded that the Revision was dismissed for being time barred. He however argued that, this Court did not determine the matter in its merits that's why the Court of appeal couldn't determine the appeal before it. My perusal of the pleadings filed by the parties, I found that it is true that intended revision was determined by my sister, Hon. Bahati, J. as Labour Revision No. 19 of 2020. On 18th March 2022, the suit was dismissed for being time barred. It true that this Court did not determine the suit on merits, it merely dismissed it for being time barred as per the legal requirements provided under section 3 of the Law of Limitation Act, [Cap 89 R.E 2019]. 2 Pleadings reveals also that, the Applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania against the order via Civil Appeal No. 237 of 2022. On 20th September 2023, the Applicant's counsel prayed to withdraw the appeal for being misconceived, the prayer which was granted by the Court of Appeal. Although the decision of the Court of Appeal does not indicate what made the appeal before it to be misconceived, the grounds of Appeal that were filed by the Appellant before the Court of appeal speak loudly of the reasons for the Appellant's withdrawal of the appeal. The Appellant, instead of challenging this Court's decision which ruled that the suit was time barred, he raised grounds of appeal which sounds as if this Court determined the suit on merits and ruled in favour of the Respondent. The only issue that the Appellant ought to have challenged, is the holding that his suit was time barred and not otherwise. Since this Court had already determined the Revision intended to be refiled, this Court refrains from granting extension of time. In holding so, I considered the fact that this Court does not have powers to determine a matter it had already determined. When the suit is dismissed it is considered to have been determined to its finality and the party cannot reinstitute the same. See, the decision of the Court of Appeal of Tanzania in Zaido Sozi Mziba versus The Director of Broadcasting ^TD and Attorney General, Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2001. In such circumstances, this Court cannot re-admit nor determine the matter on merits unless the Applicant challenges successfully the decision of this Court in Labour Revision No. 19 of 2020 by proving that, the matter was not 3 time barred. Since the Applicant did not manage to challenge the said decision, this Court is functus officio. For those reasons the Application is hereby dismissed. Given the fact that this is a labour dispute, I do not award costs Dated at Tabora this 5th day of July 2024 Z.D.MANGO JUDGE 4