Download PDF

Tanzania Judgment

TANZLII

shabani sigera dhidi ya vihaikerry hyseas trading ltd 2022 tzhcld 978 11 oktoba 2022

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Failure to file a notice of intention to apply for revision (Form No. 10) as required by law is a fatal defect, and the application cannot stand.

Court disposition

application struck out

Orders

  • Preliminary objection upheld
  • Application struck out for failure to file mandatory notice of intention to apply for revision

02

Material facts

Parties

Shabani Sigera

Applicant Counsel: Hussein Hashim Msekwa

Rashidi Hamis

Applicant Counsel: Hussein Hashim Msekwa

Musa Kisauti

Applicant Counsel: Hussein Hashim Msekwa

Saidi na Kinanja

Applicant Counsel: Hussein Hashim Msekwa

Vihaikerry-Hyseas Trading Ltd

Respondent Counsel: Manayama Peter Nyambasi

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Labour Revision Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Whether failure to file notice of intention to apply for revision (Form No. 10) is fatal to the application

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicants argued that Rule 34 of the Employment and Labour Relations (General) Regulations, GN No. 47 of 2017, does not require a notice of intention to apply for revision and only directs where to find the relevant forms.
Respondent
The respondent argued that the law requires a notice of intention to apply for revision (Form No. 10) to be filed with the CMA before filing the application in court, and failure to do so is a fatal procedural defect.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Section 53(2) of the Interpretation of Laws Act

    Where the law uses the word 'shall' in conferring a function, the function must be performed.

  2. 02

    Rule 34 of the Employment and Labour Relations (General) Regulations, GN No. 47 of 2017

    Filing a notice of intention to apply for revision (Form No. 10) is mandatory before filing a revision application in court.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Failure to file a notice of intention to apply for revision (Form No. 10) as required by law is a fatal defect, and the application cannot stand.

Obiter and limits

  • The notice requirement enables the CMA and the other party to prepare adequately and prevents surprise, similar to notice of appeal in other courts.

Court disposition

application struck out

  • Preliminary objection upheld
  • Application struck out for failure to file mandatory notice of intention to apply for revision

Source and reliance status

TANZLII · 1 January 2022

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.

Source document

TANZLII

Judgment· 1 January 2022

shabani sigera dhidi ya vihaikerry hyseas trading ltd 2022 tzhcld 978 11 oktoba 2022

JAMHURI YA MUUNGANO WA TANZANIA

MAHAKAMA KUU YA TANZANIA

DIVISHENI YA KAZI

PAR ES SALAAM MAOMBI YA MAREJEO NA. 140 YA 2022 (Kutokana na Tuzo ya Tume ya Usuiuhishi na Uamuzi ya Dar es Salaam, Haia, iiiyotoiewa Tarehe 14 Disemba 2019 katika Mgogoro wa Kazi Na. CMA/DSM/UBG/007/21/008/21) SHABANI SIGERA ................. M LETA MAOMBI - 1 RASHIDI HAMIS ............................................ MLETA MAOMBI - 2 MUSA KISAUTI.................................................. MLETA MAOMBI - 3 SAI DI NA KINANJA ...................................... MLETA MAOMBI - 4

DHIDI YA VIHAIKERRY-HYSEAS TRADING LTD................ .......MJIBU MAOMBI

HUKUMU K, T, R MTEULE, J 06/10/2022 & 11/10/2022 Shauri hili fa marejeo limefunguliwa katika Mahakama hii kuomba marejeo ya Uamuzi wa Tume ya Usuiuhishi na Uamuzi katika Mgogoro wa Kazi Na. CMA/DSM/UBG/007/21/008/21. Waleta maombi wanaomba Mahakama iitishe na kurekebisha na kutupilia mbali tuzo ya Tume ya Usuiuhishi na Uamuzi iiiyotoiewa tarehe 14 Disemba, 2019 na Mhe. Willian, R, Mwamuzi. Waleta maombi wanaomba nafuu nyingine yoyote Mahakama itaona kuwa inafaa na ni ya haki. Maombi haya yameambatishwa na kiapo jumuishi cha waleta maombi ambapo wameeleza sababu za maombi ya marejeo. i Maombi haya yamepingwa na Mjibu Maombi kupitia kiapo kinzani kilichoapwa na Bwana Edrick Luimuka, Wakili wa Mjibu Maombi. Pamoja na kiapo kinzani, mjibu maombi aliwasilisha pingamizi la awali lililoibua masuala matatu ya kisheria kama ifuatavyo:- (a) Maombi haya hayakuzingatia matakwa ya kisheria katika uwasilishwaji wake mbele ya Mahakama hi tukufu kwa kushindwa kuzingatia kanuni namba 34 ya Kanuni za Ajira na Mahusiano Kazini (Jumla) 2017, TANGAZO LA SERIKALI NA. 47 LA 2017. (b) Maombi haya hayakuzingatia matakwa ya kisheria katika uwasilishwaji wake mbele ya Mahakama hii tukufu kwa kutaja sheria ambazo sio sahihi. (c) Maombi haya hayakuzingatia matakwa ya kisheria kama yalivyotajwa katika Kanuni ya 24 ya Kanuni za Mahakama ya Kazi, TANGAZO LA SERIKALI NA. 106 LA 2007 Pingamizi la awali

lilisikilizwa kwa njia ya maandishi ambapo, waleta maombi waliwakilishwa na Bw. Hussein Hashim Msekwa, Wakili, na Mjibu Maombi aliwakilishwa na Bw. Manayama Peter Nyambasi, Wakili. Mahakama hii inapokea mawasilisho yote yaliyofanywa na wadaawa na itayazingatia katika kuandaa uamuzi wake. Baada ya kuzingatia mawasilisho ya pande zote mbili Mahakama inajibu hoja za kisheria zilizoibuliwa na mjibu maombi ikianza na hoja ya kwanza kwamba Maombi haya hayakuzingatia matakwa ya kisheria katika uwasilishwaji wake mbele ya Mahakama kwa kushindwa kuzingatia kanuni namba 34 ya Kanuni za Ajira na Mahusiano Kazini (Jumla) 2017, Tangazo La Serikali Na. 47 LA 2017. 2 Katika mawasilisho yake, Bwana Manyama ameeleza kwamba ni dhahiri kwamba kanuni inatoa ulazima kabla mtu hajaleta maombi ya marejeo nl vyema kuwasilisha notisi katika Tume ya Usuluhishi na Uamuzi (CMA). Kwa maoni yake, mleta maombi hakufuata matwaka ya kisheria yanavyohitaji kwa kushindwa kuwasilisha notisi kama ilivyo katika CMA fomu namba 10 ilivyoelezwa katika sheria tajwa hapo juu. Alirejea maamuzi mbalimbali ya mahakama kuu ambayo yaliona kutokuwasilisha taarifa ya kuomba marejeo kama ukiukwaji wa utaratibu uliosababisha maombi kutupiliwa mbali. Maamuzi hayo ni Anthony John Kazembe Vs. Inter Testing Services (EA) (PTY) LTD, Revision Application No. 391 of 2021, High Court of Tanzania (Labour Division), at Dares Salaam ambapo

mheshimiwa Jaji B.E.K.Mganga, katika ukurasa wa sita (6); Alex Situmbura Vs. Mohamed Nawayi, Revision Application No. 23 of 2021, In the High Court of United Republic of Tanzania, Musoma Sub­ Registry, At Musoma, ambapo mheshimiwa Jaji F.H. Mahimbali, katika ukurasa wa tano (5). Akijibu hoja ya kwanza, Wakili Hussein Msekwa amepinga kuwapo kwa takwa la kutoa taarifa ya notisi ya kuomba marejeo katika Kanuni ya 34 ya Tangazo la Serikali Na. 47 la 2017. Kwa maoni yake, kanuni hii ya 34(1) imeelekeza wapi unaweza kupata fomu (third schedule) ila haijataja fomu hizo zinahusu nini. Nimesomba kanuni bishaniwa. Ni Dhahiri kuwa kanuni hiyo inataka fomu zilizotajwa katika jedwali la tatu (third schedule). Inasema:- 3 "The forms set out in the Third Scheduie to these Reguiations shaii be used in aii matters to which they refer" Katika jedwali la tatu (third schedule) kuna fomu mbalimbali ikiwepo fomu Namba kumi, Form No. 10 ambayo ni notisi ya nia ya kukata rufaa. Kwa mujibu wa Kanuni ya 34 (1) ya tangazo la serikali Na. 42 la 2017, kila fomu katika jedwali la tatu ni lazima itumike ikiwepo fomu Na. 10 ambayo ni nia ya kuomba marejeo. Kwa tafsiri yangu, kwa hali ilivyo, kisheria matumizi ya fomu Na 10 hayakwepeki, na ni jambo la lazima kama alivyowasilisha wakili wa mjibu maombi akirejea kifungu namba 53(2) cha sheria ya Intepretation of Laws Act, sheria inaelezea yafuatayo; ”53(2) Where

in a written law the word "shall” is used in conferring a function, such word shall be interpreted to mean that the function so conferred must be performed." Nakubaliana na kesi zilizorejewa na wakili wa mjibu maombi, kwamba hili ni jambo ambalo linajitokeza katika mahakama hii si kwa mara ya kwanza. Nakubaliana na wenzangu waliomua kesi hizo kuwa ni takwa la lazima kutoa notisi ya kuomba marejeo CMA na nakala kwa mshinda tuzo pale ambapo mwombaji anataka kwasilisha maombi ya marejeo. Hili ni jambo la msingi kuwezesha CMA na wadaawa upande wa pili kufanya maandalizi stahiki kuepuka kushtukizwa. Taarifa hii ni sawa na notisi ya rufaa inayotolewa katika mashauri katika mahakama zinzinge. Kwa maoni yangu, notisi hiyo ni ya lazima. 4 Kwa vile kuweka notisi ya nia ya kuomba marejeo ni takwa la lazima la kisheria ambalo halijatekelezwa, nakubalina na wakili wa mjibu maombi Bw. Manyama kuwa shauri hili haliwezi kusimama. Na hoja hii pekeyake inatosha kumaliza shauri na hivyo sitaendelea na hoja zingine. Hivyo basi, naruhusu pingamizi la awali na kuondoa maombi haya mahakamani (strike out the application) kwa kuwa na dosari hii ya kisheria. Imetolewa leo Dar es salaam tarehe 11 Octoba, 2022:

KATARINA REVOCATI MTEULE

JAJI 11/10/2022 5

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Anthony John Kazembe Vs. Inter Testing Services (EA) (PTY) LTD, Revision Application No. 391 of 2021

Case cited

Alex Situmbura Vs. Mohamed Nawayi, Revision Application No. 23 of 2021

Case cited

Employment and Labour Relations (General) Regulations, GN No. 47 of 2017

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Interpretation of Laws Act

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.