shoppers supermarket ltd vs joyce fred ndimbo 2022 tzhcld 656 23 may 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA LABOUR DIVISION AT PAR ES SALAAM REVISION NO. 197 OF 2021 BETWEEN SHOPPERS SUPERMARKET LTD.................................................. APPLICANT VERSUS JOYCE FRED NDIMBO ................................................................ RESPONDENT JUDGMENT S.M, MAGHIMBI, J: This application is made under Section 91(l)(a),(b) 91(2)(a)(b)(c) and 94(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act, Cap. 366 R.E. 2019 ("ELRA") and Rule 24(1) &(2),(a),(b),(c),(d),(e) and (f) (3)(a),(b),(c),(d) and 28(l)(a)(b)(c)(e) and 55(1) and (2) of the Labour Court Rules, GN. No. 106 of 2007("the Rules") whereby the applicant is moving the court for the following: (1) That the Honourable Court be pleased to revise and set aside Arbitrator proceedings and Award issued by Hon. Ng'washi, Y (Arbitrator) in the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration in i Labour Dispute No. (CMA/DSM/KIN/80/19/388) delivered 23the April, 2021 make an order quashing the award given therein. (2) That this honourable Court be pleased to grant a declaratory order that the Proceedings and Award against the Applicants was obtained illegally, incorrectly and based on bias. (3) That, the Honourable Court may be pleased to give such further and other Orders as it deems appropriated in the circumstances. The application was disposed by way of written submissions. The applicant was to file the submissions by 28/02/2022, the respondent's reply was to be filed by 22/03/2022 and a rejoinder (if any) was to be lodged on 30/03/2022. While making his reply submissions, Mr. Hemedi. personal representative representing the respondent brought to the attention of this court that the applicant's submissions were drawn and filed on the 01/03/2022 and not on the 28/02/2022 as ordered by the court. He then argued that the applicant was supposed to come before the court and seek for extension of time instead of just filing the submissions out of time. He prayed for the dismissal of the matter. In reply, the applicant submitted that on that day he had a long hearing before Hon. Rwizile, Judge and by the time he went for filing the 2 time was over and that is why he decided to file the submissions on the next day. It is pertinent to note that the applicant did not dispute to have filed the submissions out of time, his only argument being that he was late in doing so because he was appearing before another Judge. However, the applicant is forgetting that he was granted by this court a period twenty one (21) days within which to file his submissions, something which he could not do. Now he wants the court to sympathize with him because he came to court on the 11th hour and found that the doors were closed. There is no any explanation as to why he could not file the submissions on those 21 days. The above notwithstanding, the applicant has taken the law in his own hands by just deciding to file the submissions out of time without any leave of the court. As a reminder which I expect the learned advocate to be aware of, orders of the court are made to be adhered to and no one should make any assumptions that the rules maybe relaxed to fit his desire. The applicant may simply think it is just the next day, but it is an order of the court and had a time limit, so failure to reach the dock within the time parameters set, should not be taken simple by filing the matter on 3 the "next day". The applicant has to humble himself before the court and seek leave while making an explanation as to why the application could not be made at the time set. Therefore what the applicant did is a high level of disobedience of the court orders that cannot be entertained by the court. That said, the fact remains that the applicant's submissions were filed out of the time ordered by the court. Having so found, the next question is on the remedy to this failure to adhere to the court order. Since the applicant failed to file the submissions on time, the filed submissions are expunged from the records. The records remain that the applicant failed to file his submission as ordered by the court, a consequence of which is equivalent to non-appearance on the date set for hearing. The remedy to the failure is dismissal of the application for want of prosecution which I hereby proceed to do. This application is dismissed for want of prosecution. It is so ordered. Dated at Dar es Salaam this 23rd day of May, 2022. JUDGE 4