REVIEW NO 12650 OF 2024 ROSEMARY GEORGE MWAIKAMBO VRS BOLLORE AFRICA LOGISTICS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA LABOUR DIVISION AT DAR ES SALAAM LABOUR REVIEW NO. 12650 OF 2024 CASE REFERENCE NO. 202405291000012650 ROSEMARY GEORGE MWAIKAM B O ............................... APPLICANT VERSUS BOLLORE AFRICA LOGISTICS................................. RESPONDENT RULING Date of last order: 25/6/2024 Date of ruling: 4/7/2024 OPIYO, 3. This is an application for review in which the above-named Applicant being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of the High Court (A.E Mwipopo, J, dated 20th November 2020 in Revision No. 700 of 2020 seeks review of the same on the grounds that; the this court having found that the Applicant was entitled to daily subsistence allowance on the basis of monthly basic salary from 29th April 2015 the date of termination to 19th August 2019, the date of payment of her transportation costs, arithmetically erred in calculating the number of months to be 27 months instead of 52 months. Wherefore, in short her prayers runs as follows:- 1. The Honourable Court review and correct its Judgment and Decree dated 20th November, 2020 on the computation error of the total months the Applicant was entitled to daily subsistence allowance on the basis of monthly basic salary from 29th April 2015 the date of termination to 19th August 2019 to be 52 months instead of 27 months as wrongly computed and held by the High Court so that to be in line with the holding of the Court that the Applicant was entitled to daily subsistence allowance on the basis of monthly basic salary from 29th April 2015 the date of termination to 19th August 2019 2, (b) Any other relief (s) and order (s) as the Honourable Court shall deem fit and just to grant The application is not objected by the respondent as the counsel for the respondent, one Gilbert Mushi submitted before the court that, as they have already shown the intention of appealing against the decision, they were not going to object the application to the extent that they did not file a notice of opposition or counter affidavit. In support of the application, one Kulwa Shilemba, learned counsel representing the applicant started by praying for the application to be granted as the same is not objected by the other side. She then submitted that in the judgment of this court dated 20/11/2020 in Revision No. 700/2019 at Pg 10 the Court granted payment of subsistence allowance from the date of termination to the date of payment of transport costs (29th April 2015 to 19th August 2019), but mistakenly the court calculated those days to be 27 months instead of 52 months. She argued that, review may be granted whenever the court considers necessary to correct an omission on part of the court or arithmetical errors. She cited the cases of Elia Kasalile and 17 others Vs. Institute of Social Work, Civil Appeal No. 187/18 of 2018, RV AC and 15 others, ex parte Kenya Seed Co. Ltd and 5 others. EKLR Pg 8-9 and SMT SOORIJ DEVI Vs. PYARA LAL and ANR on Jan 1981 (1981) AIR 763 at Pg 5 to fortify her argument. Therefore, as there is an arithmetical error apparent on the face of records as the above arithmetic shows, she prayed for the application to be granted. Applicant's submission has been considered plus the records. By not objecting the application, this in essence forms admission on part of the respondent that there is an error on face of records forming the basis of review in this matter. Under rule 27(1)(2) (a) -(c) of the Labour Court Rules, GN No 106 of 2007, this court has jurisdiction to make corrections of errors apparent on face of records through review. On the face of the records, in revision application no. 700/2020, indeed there is miscalculation of months which, in my considered view, is apparently arithmetical mistake as the intention of the court was vivid that it intended to grant 52 months rather than 27 months. The intention of the court is shown when it granted payment of subsistence allowance from the date of termination to the date of payment of transport costs. The date of termination was 29th April 2015 and the date of payment of transport costs was 19th August 2019. Correct calculation of the period in between is correctly 52 months not 27 months. Therefore, the writing of 27 months was indeed a mere slip of a pen as correctly argued by Shilemba. Being a mere slip, it is an error which this court can use slip rule to correct it in terms of the holding in the case of RV AC and 15 others, ex parte Kenya Seed Co. Ltd and 5 others (supra) Not only that, but also this court also gains additional strength to correct the error from the gist of section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, Cap 33 RE 2019 allowing for correction of errors including arithmetical errors. For the reasons, I allow the review by correcting this court's Judgment and Decree in Revision Application No. 700 of 2020 dated 20th November, 2020 on the computation error of the total months the Applicant is entitled to daily subsistence allowance on the basis of monthly basic salary from 29th April 2015 the date of termination to 19th August 2019 to be 52 months instead of 27 months. It is so ordered.