said juma mtika vs home african investment 2021 tzhcld 5 26 february 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA LABOUR DIVISION AT DAR ES SALAAM MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 744 OF 2019 SAID JUMA MTIKA APPLICANT VERSUS HOME AFRICAN INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.......................... RESPONDENT RULING Date of last Order: 22/02/2021 Date of Ruling: 26/02/2021 Z.G.Muruke.J. Applicant Said Juma Mtijca was^giployee of the respondent from 1 March, 2015 to 15th September, 2018 when retrenched. Being dissatisfied he filed dispute at CM^^^med’,sCMA/DSM/KIN/R.164/18/01 upon hearing both parties, caseSa^adjoiffld for judgment. After several adjournment, decision was^SSIi|M^@jSfavour of respondent in the absence of applicant. It was untiPon 8?LNovember, 2019 when applicant was served copy of the judgjr^ent b^his^former personal representative. Upon reading, applicant intended|tojfile revision, his representative refused to persue revision. He thus decided to look for legal assistance. It was until on 14th December, 2019 when he got one and filed present application on 20th December, 2019. i Reason are started at paragraph 7,8,9 and 10 of his own affidavit in support of the application. Respondent did not file counter affidavit to challenge the content of affidavit in support of the application. To this court, reason started from paragraph 7,8,9 and 10 are sufficient. What applicant is seeking is right to be heard on his intended revision. Right to be heard is to basic and it is fundamental. Failure t^hear^aKpart^ns an error which goes to the root of the matter and is^alxRule^ofJnatural justice states that no man should be condemned -unheard anckindeed both sides should be heard unless one side choosesi^t tq^It is a basic law that, no one should be condemned to adjudgment passed against him without being afforded a chanc^^b^^heard. The right to be heard is a valued right and itw^®1ofl^i^notions of justice if the rights of a part were to be prejudiced or affected without the party being afforded an opportunity to b^heara^^' The very foundation upon^which our judicial system rests is that, a party who comes tt^tmsjgBf be heard fairly and fully and a magistrate who does mot4fiearta^party before him or party's advocate offends that fundamental^prindple and it then, becomes the duty of the (appellate) court to tellmiriksd as people come to court as the last resort and judges are em^ygd to hear them and determine their cases. I have also considered, degree of prejudice if application is granted, in essence, respondent will have right to be heard on intended application for revision, thus, there will be no prejudice. 2 Accordingly application for extension of time to file revision is granted. Same to be filed within thirty (30) days from today. 3