Ruling Seni
- Citation
- Ruling Seni
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TANZLII
- Decision
- 10 May 2024
- Posture
- Labour Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TANZLII
- Decision
- 10 May 2024
- Posture
- Labour Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to file written submissions as ordered, amounting to failure to prosecute.
Court disposition
Application dismissed for want of prosecution
Orders
- Application dismissed for want of prosecution without cost
02
Material facts
Parties
Seni Mahigu Seni
Applicant Counsel: Silas JohnMansoor Industries Ltd
Respondent Counsel: Innocent Bernard03
Procedural history
Posture
Labour Revision / Ruling on Application for Revision
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether failure to file written submissions amounts to failure to prosecute
- 02
Whether the application should be dismissed for want of prosecution
Party arguments
- Respondent
- The respondent argued that the application should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to the applicant's failure to file written submissions as ordered by the court.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Laemthong Rice Co. Ltd Vs. Principal Secretary Ministry of Finance Zanzibar, Civil Appeal No. 259 of 2019; Mary Joseph Vs. Rachel Zephania, Misc. Land Application No. 37 of 2020; Kiputo S/o Ahmad Vs. Mariki S/o Mpenda & 3 Others Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2021; Winfrida Lazaro Zabron Vs. Ryaga Yuda Ryaga & 6 Others, Civil Case No. 30 of 2022; Godfrey Kimbe Vs. Peter Ngonyani, Civil Appeal No. 41 of 2014
Court orders must be respected; failure to file written submissions is tantamount to non-appearance and warrants dismissal for want of prosecution.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to file written submissions as ordered, amounting to failure to prosecute.
Court disposition
Application dismissed for want of prosecution
- Application dismissed for want of prosecution without cost
Source and reliance status
TANZLII · 10 May 2024
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
TANZLII
Judgment· 10 May 2024
THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA THE SUB-REGISTRY OF MWANZA
AT MWANZA LABOUR REVISION NO. 13183 OF 2024 (Original Labor Dispute No. CMA/MZ/NYAM/125/2023/066/2023) SENI MAHIGU SENI ..................................................................... APPLICANT
VERSUS MANSOOR INDUSTRIES LTD ................................................... RESPONDENT
RULING 3rd & 29th November, 2024 CHUMA, J The applicant Seni Mahigu Seni is aggrieved with the decisions of the CMA in Labour dispute No. CMA/MZ/NYAM/125/2023/066/2023 dated 10th day of May, 2024 by Hon. Msuwakollo. The applicant has preferred the instant application seeking this Court to revise the said Arbitral awards, quash and set aside the Arbitral proceedings and their resultant award and or orders and any other orders this court may deem fit to grant. This application was ordered to be disposed of by way of the written submission. According to the scheduling order, the applicant ought to file his submission on 30.10.2024, reply on 13.11.2024 and rejoinder if any by 20.11.2024, and ruling on 29.11.2024. 1 However, the available submission is that of the respondent filed by Mr. Innocent Bernard advocate for the respondent. In his submission he urged this court to dismiss the application for want of prosecution for failure of the applicant to file submission. Having gone through the record, there is no doubt as submitted by Mr. Innocent advocate for the respondent the applicant failed to file his submission for unknown reasons as per the ordered schedule. It has been held countless times that court orders must be respected. See the cases of Laemthong Rice Co. Ltd Vs. Principal Secretary Ministry of Finance Zanzibar, Civil Appeal No. 259 of 2019; and Mary Joseph Vs. Rachel
Zephania, Misc. Land Application No. 37 of 2020. It is also beyond doubt as correctly argued by Mr. Innocent's advocate for the applicant that, failure to file written submissions as ordered by the court is tantamount to non-appearance in court on the date fixed for the hearing. See the case of Kiputo S/o Ahmad Vs. Mariki S/o Mpenda & 3 Others Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2021 (unreported) on page 5, last paragraph and page 6 last paragraph, Winfrida Lazaro Zabron Vs. Ryaga Yuda Ryaga & 6 Others, Civil Case No. 30 of 2022 (unreported), on pages 4 and 5and Godfrey Kimbe 2 Vs. Peter Ngonyani, Civil Appeal No. 41 of 2014 (unreported). Therefore, because the applicant failed to file his submission in chief in total disregard of the court order he has failed to prosecute his application. For the reasons considered and stated herein above, I dismiss this application for want of prosecution without cost. DATED at MWANZA this 29th day of November, 2024 W.M. CHUMA
JUDGE 3 Ruling delivered virtually in court before Mr. Silas John advocate for the Applicant and Mr. Innocent Bernard advocate for the respondent this 29th day of November, 2024. C. KISONGO
DEPUTY REGISTRAR 4
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.