Star Media

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA BUKOBA SUB-REGISTRY ATBUKOBA MISC. LABOUR APPLICATION NO. 16 OF 2023 (Arising from Labour Revision No. 13 of2023 and originated from Labour Dispute Number CMA/KAG/BUK/32/2022/02/2022 of the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration at Bukoba) STAR MEDIA (TANZANIA) LTD..................................... ....... APPLICANT VERSUS ACACIUS ANACLET KAMARLA.......... ............ ......... RESPONDENT RULING 26th June and 5th July, .2024 BANZI, J.: The applicant herein is seeking extension of time to file a labour revision against the award of the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration at Bukoba (CMA) delivered on 1st September, 2023. The application is made under the provisions of rule 24(1), (2)(a) to (f), (3), (ll)(b), 25(l)(b) and 56(1) of the Labour Court Rules, GN No. 106 of 2007 by way of notice of application, chamber summons and it is supported by an affidavit Mariam Mohamed Chamba, the principal officer of the applicant. Through notice of opposition and his counter affidavit, the respondent opposed the application . The factual background leading to the dispute at hand reveals that, on 6th June, 2022, the respondent referred the labour dispute before the CMA Page 1 of 8 against his employer, the applicant after his employment being terminated on 31st May, 2022. Upon receiving the evidence from both sides, the learned Arbitrator concluded that, the termination was unfair both substantively and procedurally. At the end, the applicant was condemned to pay the respondent compensation of 48 months remuneration to the tune of Tshs.29,952,000/=. Dissatisfied with that decision, the applicant timely filed application for revision number 13 of 2023 before this Court which 7th November, 2023, was struck out for being incompetent. On 8th November, 2023, the applicant returned before this Court with this application seeking extension of time so that she can file the fresh revision. When the application was called for hearing, Mr. Ibrahim Mswadick, learned counsel appeared for the applicant while, the respondent was represented by Mr. Gerase Reuben, learned counsel. By consent, the application was argued by way of written submission whereby, both parties had complied with the court scheduled order. Mr. Mswadick submitted that, after delivery of the decision of the CMA, the applicant filed the first revision within time prescribed under the law. However, on 7th November, 2023, the said revision was struck out on legal technicalities for want of signature of the applicant on the notice of Page 2 of8 application. On 8th November, 2023, the applicant filed this application which is one day after the said revision was struck out. According to him, apart from the days the applicant spent in court prosecuting the said revision which is considered as technical delay, the applicant has accounted for a single day of delay as she used the same fordrafting and filing this application. He cited the cases Fortunatus Masha vs William Shija and Another [1997] TLR 154, Henerico Baisi vs Abbas Omary and Another, Misc. Land Application No. 12 of 2022 HC at Bukoba (unreported), Abdu Athumani Kinumi vs Sofia Hassan [2023] TZHC 359 TanzLII and Vodacom Tanzania Public Limited Company vs Commissioner General Tanzania Revenue Authority [2021] TZCA 400 to support his arguments. Finally, he relied on the case of Jesse Kimani vs Me Cornel and Another [1966] EA 547 and argued that, the respondent will not be prejudiced when the extension is granted. In that regard, he prayed for the application to be granted as the applicant has established good cause. In response, Mr. Reuben submitted that, an advocate is expected to be knowledgeable of the rules and procedures governing the conduct of the proceedings before the court. Thus, the act of filing incompetent revision demonstrates negligence, apathy and lack of diligence on the side of the applicant which cannot constitute sufficient cause for the delay. According Page 3 of 8 to him, the applicant has failed to account for 150 days from 1st September, 2023 to 15th January, 2024 when this application was filed. He cited the case of Josephat Mwemezi Bakuza vs Winifrida Mukono and Another [2024] TZCA 270 TanzLII to support his arguments. In that regard, he prayed for the application to be dismissed with costs. In his rejoinder, Mr. Mswadick insisted that, the revision number 13 of 2023 was struck out for legal technicalities and not for negligence of the advocate. He further submitted that, after delivery of the decision of the CMA, on 6th October, 2023, the applicant timely filed revision number 13 of 2023 which remained in this court until 7th November, 2023 when it was struck out and on 8th November, 2023, she filed this application. In that regard, there was technical delay and the actual delay was just one day that was used to prepare this application and hence the cited case of Josephat Mwemezi Bakuza vs Winifrida Mukono and Another is distinguishable. Therefore, he reiterated his prayer for the application to be granted. Having carefully examined the affidavit, counter affidavit and the arguments for and against the application, the main issue for determination is whether the applicant has established good cause to warrant this court to grant extension of time. Page 4 of 8 It is worthwhite noting here that, rule 56 (1) of the Labour Court Rules, gives this Court the discretion to extend the period of limitation for the institution of revision where it has been sufficiently established that, the delay was with good cause. It is also prudent to underscore that, there are various factors to be taken into consideration before granting or refusing to grant extension of time. Among them, the applicant is required to account for each day of the delay. However, in the case of Fortunatos Masha vs William Shija and Another {supra) it was stated that: u distinction should be made between cases involving real or actual delays and those like the present one which only involve what can be called technical delays in the sense that the original appeal was lodged in time but the present situation arose only because the original appeal for one reason or another has been found to be incompetent and a fresh appeal has to be instituted, In the circumstances, the negligence if any really refers to the filing of an incompetent appeal not the delay in filing it The filing of an incompetent appeal having been duly penalised by striking it out, the same cannot be used yet again to determine the timeousness of applying for filing the fresh appeal. In fact, in the present case, the applicant acted Page 5 of 8 immediately after the pronouncement of the ruling of this Court striking out the first appeal. "(Emphasis supplied). What I gathered from the extract above is that, there is another factor that is called technical delay i.e., the time lost by party when he was pursuing matters in court. The applicant is excused from accounting for each day of the delay within such period when he was in court corridors in pursuit of his right. See also the cases of Salvand K.A. Rwegasira vs China Henan International Group Co. Ltd, Civil Reference No. 18 of 2006 (unreported), Bank M (Tanzania) Limited vs Enock Mwakyusa [2018] TZCA 291 TanzLII, Victor Rweyemamu Binamungu vs Geofrey Kabaka and Another [2020] TZCA 290 TanzLII, and Emmanuel Makamba vs Bodi ya Wadhamini Jimbo Kuu la Mwanza [2022] TZCA 809 TanzLII. Reverting to the matter at hand, looking closely at the affidavit of the applicant with its annexures, it is apparent that, after the delivery of the award of the CMA on 1st September, 2023, the applicant timely filed application for revision number 13 of 2023 before this Court. However, on 7th November, 2023, the said application was struck out for being incompetent. As correctly submitted by Mr. Mswadick, the applicant has lost time in pursuit of his revision before this Court. The period of delay up to 7th November, 2023 when Revision No. 13 of 2023 was struck out is a technical Page 6 Of 8 delay which is explainable and excusable. That is to say, the applicant is excused from accounting for each day of the delay within the period when he was before this court in pursuit of Revision No. 13 of 2023. In his submission, Mr. Reuben was adamant that, the applicant exhibited negligence by filing the incompetent revision and thus, she should be penalised through this application. However, with due respect^ his argument is misplaced because, basing on the authorities cited above, the negligence if any cannot be used yet again to penalise the applicant in applying for extension of time in a bid to file a fresh revision. Apart from that, the record reveals that, this application was filed on 8th November, 2023 which is one day after the revision in question was struck out. In that view and with due respect, the argument by Mr. Reuben that, this application was filed on 15th January, 2024 is not only unfounded but also misplaced. Besides, the applicant has accounted for the said single day which constitutes actual delay that, he spent the same to prepare this application. Furthermore, the act of filing this application just one day after the revision was struck out demonstrates promptness which is another factor that constitute good cause. In that regard, as correctly submitted by Mr. Mswadick, the cited case of Josephat Mwemezi Bakuza vs Winifrida Mukono and Another concerning negligence is distinguishable. Therefore, Page 7 of 8 it is the finding of this Court that, the applicant has managed to establish good cause to warrant this Court to grant extension of time. That being said, I grant the application by giving the applicant thirty (30) days from the date of this ruling to file the Revision. Owing to the nature of this matter, I make no order as to costs. It is accordingly ordered. I. K. BANZI JUDGE 05/07/2024 Delivered this 5th day of July, 2024 in the presence of Mr. Ibrahim Mswadick, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Gerase Reuben, learned counsel for the respondent who is also present and Ms. Mwashabani Bundala, RMA. Right of appeal duly explained. I. K. BANZI JUDGE 05/07/2024 Page 8 of 8