20011017 TZHC Dr es Salaam

20011017 TZHC Dr es Salaam

The appellant is entitled to terminal benefits from the second respondent for the period 1983 to May 1995, as the second respondent failed to pay what was due, despite the Labour Officer's direction. The appellant is not entitled to subsistence or repatriation allowances as he was recruited from Dar es Salaam.

Citation
20011017 TZHC Dr es Salaam
Parties
Appellant: Said Mkukika; Respondent: General Manager Tipper; Respondent: Shop Manager, Tipper Consumer Company Society
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
17 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
partially allowed
Legal Topics
Terminal Benefits, Severance Allowance, Subsistence Allowance, Repatriation Expenses, Employment Contract, Framing of Issues
Source Language
English
Labour Law Employment Law Terminal Benefits Severance Allowance Subsistence Allowance Repatriation Expenses Employment Contract Framing of Issues

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Said Mkukika

Appellant

General Manager Tipper

Respondent

Shop Manager, Tipper Consumer Company Society

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was employed on a permanent or temporary basis
  2. 2 Whether the appellant is entitled to payment of subsistence allowance
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was paid terminal benefits as directed by the Commissioner for Labour

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant is entitled to terminal benefits from the second respondent for the period 1983 to May 1995, as the second respondent failed to pay what was due, despite the Labour Officer's direction. The appellant is not entitled to subsistence or repatriation allowances as he was recruited from Dar es Salaam.

Court Disposition

partially allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed only to the extent that the second respondent must pay the appellant his terminal benefit for the period 1983 to May 1995 as shown in exhibit D2.
  • All other grounds of appeal are dismissed.