RICHARD MASYOLE V

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA SHINYANGA SUB - REGISRTY AT SHINYANGA MISC. LABOUR APPLICATION NO. 2024011400000635 RICHARD MASYOLE LUNAGA.………………………………. APPLICANT VERSUS GAKI INVESTIMENT COMPANY LIMITED ……….……. RESPONDENT [Application from the Decision and Award of the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration of Shinyanga at Shinyanga] (A. Massay, Arbitrator.) dated the 17th day of August, 2022 in CMA/SHY/110/2019 ----------- RULING 18th & 28th June, 2024. S.M. KULITA, J. This is the application for condonation to file Labour Revision before this court, out of time. It has been filed by the Applicant by way of chamber summons in terms Rules 24(1)(2)(3) and 55(1) of the Labour Court Rules, GN. No. 106 of 2007. In the chamber summons, the Applicant prays for this Court to grant extension of time to file Revision against the proceedings and 1 award of the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration of Shinyanga at Shinyanga (CMA) in the Labour Dispute No. CMA/SHY/110/2019, delivered on 17th day of August, 2022. It is supported with an affidavit sworn by the applicant on 28th December, 2023. In a nut shell, information as can be gathered from the available records provide that, the applicant had sued the respondent at CMA Shinyanga through the said for Labour Dispute No. CMA/SHY/110/2019. Aggrieved with the decision of CMA, the Applicant herein preferred the Application for Revision at High Court which was registered as Labour Revision No. 12 of 2022. He lodged it at High Court Shinyanga on 27th September, 2022. The said Application for Revision was attacked with the Preliminary Objection on point of law that it had been moved with a non- existing law. Hence, struck out. That was 08/12/2023. This Miscellaneous Application was argued by way of written submissions. The Respondent is represented by Mr. Paul Kaunda, Advocate while the Applicant appeared in person. Mr. Kaunda opted not to file Counter Affidavit nor did he filed a reply submission, though he had the right to submit on factual arguments. Thus, the matter was entertained ex-parte against the Respondent. 2 In his written submission as well as his affidavit in support of the application, the Applicant stated that he has lodged this application for condonation because he is out of the prescribed time limit to re-file the Application for Revision before this court after the struck out of his previous application, Labour Revision No. 12 of 2022, on the 8th day of December, 2023, on technical ground of wrong citation. He said that, he has been obliged to lodge this application as the impugned CMA award was delivered on 17th day of August, 2022 while the prescribed time limit to lodge Revision at High Court is 6 (six) weeks from the date of delivery of the CMA award. The Applicant concluded by praying for his application for condonation to be allowed. As narrated herein before that there was no reply from the opponent side. Hence, submissions ended up there. From the above submissions and upon going through the lower court records, I have the following observations; As submitted by the applicant in his written submission, it is ample in the record that the Applicant herein has been prosecuting his Labour Revision case No. 12 of 2022 before this court from 27th September, 2022 to 8th December, 2023, the date that it was struck 3 out on technical ground of wrong citation, whereby the Applicant had cited the non-existing law. According to section 17 of the Law of Limitation Act [Cap 89 RE 2019] the duration of time that the that the applicant for extension of time (condonation) has spent in prosecuting the impugned matter should be excluded in computing the days of delay. This application for condonation being filed on 14th January, 2024, that is, the 37th day after the struck out of Labour Revision case No. 12 of 2022 on 8th December, 2023, implies that the applicant had been prompt with no inordinate delay. I thus find that, the applicant’s act of filing this application on that 37th day after the struck out of the Labour Revision No. 12 of 2022, on the 8th day of December, 2023, is reasonable. Be it noted that section 91(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act [Cap 366 RE 2022] prescribes for six weeks (42 days) period as the time limit for the application of Revision against the CMA award to be lodged at High Court. The fact that computation of the time limit to re-file the Application for Revision at High Court recons on the date of struck out of the Labour Revision No. 12 of 2022, on the 8th day of December, 2023, that is, after 4 exclusion of the time period that the Applicant had been prosecuting that said case, find no inordinate delay by the Applicant. Among the conditions that the court should take into consideration in granting the extension of time as per LYAMUYA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD V. BOARD OF REGISTRED TRUSTEES OF YOUNG WOMEN CHRISTINA ASSOCIATION OF TANZANIA, Civil Application no. 2 of 2010, CAT, is that there should be no inordinate delay in filing the application. Furthermore, this application has not been contested by the opponent party. In upshot, this application for condonation by the applicant is hereby granted with no order as to costs. The Applicant is ordered to lodge his application for Revision in 6 (six) weeks (42 days) from today. S.M. KULITA JUDGE 28/06/2024 DATED at SHINYANGA this 28th day of June, 2024. 5 S.M. KULITA JUDGE 28/06/2024 6