shabani sigera dhidi ya vihaikerry hyseas trading ltd 2022 tzhcld 978 11 oktoba 2022
- Citation
- shabani sigera dhidi ya vihaikerry hyseas trading ltd 2022 tzhcld 978 11 oktoba 2022
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Court
- TANZLII
- Decision
- 1 January 2022
- Posture
- Labour Revision Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- TANZLII
- Decision
- 1 January 2022
- Posture
- Labour Revision Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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 MsekwaRashidi Hamis
Applicant Counsel: Hussein Hashim MsekwaMusa Kisauti
Applicant Counsel: Hussein Hashim MsekwaSaidi na Kinanja
Applicant Counsel: Hussein Hashim MsekwaVihaikerry-Hyseas Trading Ltd
Respondent Counsel: Manayama Peter Nyambasi03
Procedural history
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
Legal principles
- 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.
- 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.
TANZLII
Judgment· 1 January 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
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.