salehe hassan mjinja vsvocational education and training authority veta 2022 tzhcld 708 22 july 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA LABOUR DIVISION AT PAR ES SALAAM MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 171 OF 2022 SALEHE HASSAN MJINJA APPLICANT VERSUS VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING AUTHORITY (VETA) RESPONDENT RULING 28th June & 22nd July 2022 Rwizile, J The applicant brought,t^wphcations. It is therefore an omnibus one. In the first applicatiori^^applicant asked this Court to extend time to file an applicajj^ffi^ revision. In the second, the applicant petitioned this Cot^u^^^inti'ng an extension, then proceed to hear, revise and set aside tnedecision of the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration (CMA) w in the labour dispute No. CMA/DSM/TEM/74/2010 dated 08th July, 2010. In his two affidavits, the applicant alleged, he was employed by the respondent since 23rd July, 2002 to hold a post of Laboratory Instructor and was sent to work at Mtwara RVTSC-Mtwara. On 19th April, 2006, the i applicant was transferred to Dar es Salaam RVTSC in what he considered an ambiguous transfer. On 29th January, 2010, he was served with the termination letter. Being aggrieved, the applicant filed a labour dispute at CMA claiming terminal benefits due to unfair termination. On 08th July, 2010, the CMA dismissed the dispute for being incompetent. Again, the applicant was not satisfied, hence this application wjitl^) is^pkferreid out of time. ~ The application is supported by two affidgwt^of^ila& applicant. The respondent opposed by the counter afflda^^Orgby Mr. Mathias Kulwa, Legal Officer of the respondentwut be'fpiejjearing of this application Mr. Mathias raised a preliminarygobjectioj^ That the app/icati^^^d^and unmaintainable in law for combining two^unr^te^^^^Sions to wit an application forextension of time to of time and application for revision." De^te^^^nrepresented, the applicant pressed for oral hearing of the objection. Mr. Mathias submitted that the application is untenable in law. He stated that the application has combined two separate applications which do not relate. He argued, by filing separate affidavits, it means, the applicant knew the applications were to be filed separately in compliance to Rule 24 of the Labour Court Rules, G.N. No. 106 of 2007, which provides for a notice of application. He submitted that the two separate applications are governed by two different provisions. He added, the application for revision is governed by rule 24(1) and (2) (a-f), (3)(a)(b) and (d), rule 28(l)(a)(d) and (e) of G.N. No. 106 of 2007 and section 91(l)(a)(b) of The Employment qncULabour Relations Act [CAP. 366 R.E. 2019], while an application fonextension of time is governed by rule 24(1)(2) and (3), ancMlle 56(1) of G.N. No. 106 of 2007. Mr. Mathias stated that the applicant lumped the two applications in one and since they are govern^ b^lf^rent sets of law, they cannot be lumped together. Mr. M|^te^bmitted that the application forextension of time is to show ^^^nt cause as provided for under rule 56(1) of G.N. No. 106 o^^^^^tiie an application for revision, the applicant has to shov/^trat theliWard is illegal as provided for under rule 28 of G.N. No. 106 of 2007. He also stated, an application for revision, has time limitation of 6 weeks from the date of revision as provided under section 91(a)(2) of [CAP. 366 R.E. 2019] while the application for extension of time has no limit, He supported his submission by citing the case of Rutagatina C.L v The Advocates Committee and Another, Civil Application No. 98 of 3 2010 at page 8. He stated that in the present application, the applicant has not only filed an application combining two related prayers but has gone further to file another application for revision in the same Court record. He asked this court to have this application struck out. In reply, Mr. Salehe submitted, it is a settled law that a Court can entertain an application in more than one set. He stated, fact^C|olbe^cgnsiclered are whether there is a specific law barring such^combinatirffb And, if the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the combinedhpplicafions. Mr. Salehe continued to argue, this a^iteatibjywbuld be incompetent if, it is found, the court has no jurisdiction tosentertain them. It was his view that the case of Rutagatina C.L v fhe Advocates Committee and Another (supra) is distingiWiable because it dealt with matters before the Courtx)f AppeaCic^before the High Court. He subi^it^pthe# two applications before this court have to be en^ai^^ife after another, since entertaining the application for revision, depends on granting of the first prayer for extension of time. He was keen and held the view that, factors for determination of both applications require the applicant to state reasons as under paragraphs 11 to 13 of affidavits supporting the applications. To support his 4- submission, he cited the case of Uwenacho Salum v Moshi Salum Ntankwa, Miscellaneous Application No. 367 of 2021 at page 6-10. He stated that there is no specific law for the preposes of avoiding multiplicity of suits and it also saves time for parties and the Court. He stated that the prayer for extension of time and an application for revision are interlinked and interdependent. Finally, he stated^Ct, tOapplication should be granted and the preliminary objectiorf^^^ruleHwith costs. In re-joining, Mr. Mathias reiterated what wiTsJrated in the submission in X chief. He but added that the applicanMl^s^t^^vn how the application for extension of time and revision are^interrelated. The learned State Attorney argued that thej&ules^^rning this Court do not allow combining of suits. FoAttraraafcer, they should not be entertained as the law does rigta^o^ri^^two horses at a time. He finalised by stating that the applicatiorRhasto be granted first if the other one has to be filed. He then^orave^^the application to be struck out. Having heard the parties, it is a practice in Courts of law to combine more than one prayer in an application. The reasons for doing that are apparently, clear as stated in the case of Uwenacho Salum v Moshi Salum Ntankwa (supra), as time and resources serving. However, in this application the applicant has filed two different applications at par, 5 which are for extension of time and for revision. Even though they are between the same parties and emanated from one labour dispute, they are different. For extension of time to be granted, the applicant has to show reason for the delay and account for each day delayed. The Court then after considering what has been adduced by the party n^^^ms|^J^|rant the extension of time. If granted, then the pd^ is allowed to file an application for revision. On the other hand, the application^fon^iaSfero revise the proceedings and an award of the CMA. Iri^^rJSteme revision to be heard, the applicant has first to be gra,|ted extension of time to file the already filed application out of time^h^^’uvo applications cannot be entertained in the same same time. In the casejof^Recho Joshua v Meda Joseph, Miscellaneous Civil Appljca^tKNTN’oflO of 2020, High Court at Mwanza at page 5 cited the case of Mohamed Salimin v Jumanne Omary Mapesa, Civil Application No. 103 of 2014, where it was held that: - "As it is, the application is omnibus for combining two or more unrelated applications. As this court has held for time(s) without 6 number an omnibus application renders the application Incompetent and is liable to be struck out." With respect to resilience and boldness of the applicant, I hold a different view, but shared with the respondent. This omnibus application cannot be 7