shabani sigera dhidi ya vihaikerry hyseas trading ltd 2022 tzhcld 978 11 oktoba 2022
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.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- shabani sigera dhidi ya vihaikerry hyseas trading ltd 2022 tzhcld 978 11 oktoba 2022
- Parties
- Applicant: Shabani Sigera; Applicant: Rashidi Hamis; Applicant: Musa Kisauti; Applicant: Saidi na Kinanja; Respondent: Vihaikerry-Hyseas Trading Ltd
- Court
- TANZLII
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 1 January 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Labour Revision Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- application struck out
- Legal Topics
- Revision Procedure, Notice Requirement, CMA Procedure
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Shabani Sigera
Applicant
Rashidi Hamis
Applicant
Musa Kisauti
Applicant
Saidi na Kinanja
Applicant
Vihaikerry-Hyseas Trading Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Labour Revision Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether failure to file notice of intention to apply for revision (Form No. 10) is fatal to the application
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.
Court Disposition
application struck out
Orders
- Preliminary objection upheld
- Application struck out for failure to file mandatory notice of intention to apply for revision
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
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