20150430 TZHC Moshi

IN .THE HEGH COURT OF ·n+E UNETEDi REPUBLIC O;F 'fAN ZAN IA LABOUR D.lIVISiON XN THE LABOUR COURT ZONE CENTRE AT MOSHI REVISION NO. 19 OF 2013 28/04/2015 & 30/04/2015 . M1pawa, J. ',.; , ~ ,l!! . ' f? . 'f/.t;;;;;:1;f/? ' 1 The Applicant sty_led ,s0~_port (T) Ltd, filed the present revision, as . ' against the Respcmde.nt,qdestus Njau, under the normal notice of - ~ '~ application 2, ·• throuif.R~~4l~~it(2) of the L~bour Court Rules3,· and -Section 91, (1) of th~ A:rruq\·ylJJ~t and Labour Relations Act4, the application for <e,~, 'Z\~ '~;i!']P revision i~.I4f.P'Ortea1by an affidavit of one Wenslaus Map~li. The revision is cbaflengi~:/-;;tb~ award of the CMA5• . . •I; 1 Refers to Swissport Tanzania Limited . . . 2 See s'arclays Bank (T) Limited V. Kombo Ally Singoma, Misc. Application No 14/20111, before Moshi, J. HCLD the · Court held that failure to initiat~ a revision by way of notice of application as prescribed. under Rule 24 of the · Labour Court is an ir~egularity 3 . ·, . Government Notice No. 106 of 2007 GN No. 106/2007 the Rules 4 Act No. 6 of 2004 Cap 366 RE 2002 5 CMA refers to the Commission for Mediation ancj Arbitration ; r At the ·hearing or tne revision - t.he · Coun: was legally bound {vinculum Juris) to hear· in primo loco (in the first place) the preliminary objection raised by the Respondent to the effect that:-· ... The affidavit by one Wenslaus Mapuli in support of Application for Revision No. 19 of 2013 is incurably ' defective ... for it contains prayer rather than f~q(s... .~'~--:;>' -:- ~i';}\ ..,. :;l~ ·~~ . ,riW-~Jzi\\\_ ._'¥~_1,tf' Mr. Ali -Salumbo, Manager of the Applicant Swisspoft:1JT) lJmited in . . ·-t:'·> ....~> ·~¼f~ Kilimanjaro and the Learned Advocate Mr. Sandi vyt,c(was being assisted by . . . : ~'~~ ·:ftft.. •t~~{f::;,. M/S Diana _Advocate represented the ApplJfant in tb.e hearing of the · ~tit~- ~~~tr~-~. preliminary objection which was argued viva viict:: (by live voice). . . &t,'fi> t'' • ,, . Submitting in support of the prel,L[lin~"ry objection the Respondent -.ti... · ·-~ ;stt51;Y 4 told the Court that in the affidavif,which ;~upports the revision application it ~l~ -~i~~V:T;.<::;::~f~Ll : contains prayers in paragraph 6 of the affidavit which is contrary to the ~~ . ' ,• . Civil Procedure Order l~ ,'·taQ., tq~refore he prayed· the revision application 7 be struck :~~ : : ~~r\• }¼ . 0 Replying}~[v1r:;;t~_affcff; Learned Advocate fo~ the Applicant submitted ... :-tJJJ::,7.~~ -:i::\.,, ~:; ' . vi'f,,a voc,e tn, 9tth~',jApplicant's contention is- not valid at all because Rule ' ~~ - 'A- 24 (31,.,(d) ot.'"Wabour Court Rules is clear as it provide what the affidavit must coilt9Jri. ,,. The Labour Court Rules provide that the application shall be . supported by affidavit which if!cludes reliefs sought8• 6 Notice of preliminary objection raised by the Respondent at page 1 7 CPC Cap 33 RE 33 . 8 _ op. cit note 3 Rule 24 (3) (di states that the application shall be supported by an affidavit which shall clearly and concisely set out (d) the relief sought - · ·, · 2 " i ~ .. • .: Rej9ining the Respondent .. suqmitted ::i1c:t .ths. -affidavit must not \ · contain prayers and reliefs; he cited the- famous case of· Uganda V. Commissioner of Prisons Ex-pa rte Matovu 9 . He insisted .that the application must be dismissed. I have carefully considered the submissions cf~p9th". Pgrtie.s and I have re'ad the cited case of Uganda V. Commissic;iJ~r~. o~f ;~i,s9:;t Ex- . 10 - ~ ~v parte Matovu with ex-abandunt cautela Syvith eyes'\qf caution or . ' ~~ ~~;. ~ V' · ·· extreme caution) I ·entirely and respectfully agf¢e·~hat the Respondent h·ad submitted in respect of _affidavits as ' it may'S~ ..n~ctin the holding of ~ t.1\} ~--.!~:... the case 11 .. The case remains the Land Ma'rk~ N~ve'rtheless, I don't agree (?1~_ ~~\~~r. -'}fl.> . with. the Respondent submissionJhat the affidavitin Labour Court must not • • . + , ·t:r ·;_~*~-h !1 contain prayers and reliefs because:- '"\'i~,:1,tfi · ' ~ ~ . . M ' ~ ... The Labour Court as ci:specialized '"_,:,.»· Court has its laws ~.~~ "\ ~·1- -· legislations ancl Rules enacted and passed by the • '¾~,, ~h legislature. witfJ the~iJirh of guiding the Labour Court to J:.ft:::..fr,~ ~{t~- ).; '➔ .h . achieveJts ·erz.qs}::purpose and specific objectives which "¾,1s_s6c:1a/JusJt~lfand "*.]~ ~~}. industrial harmony... 12 ---:.~~.,/ ""'-• ~~• ,j,(, •:~.). I • ,.-:~:>:-,,, i-·· ~ _ ·~~Thef;fret~'e/4, ~ain objectives ~nd purpose of the Labour Legislatio~s 7 tience\~abou'r.~,court is to "advance economic development, social justice ~;~, -1~~\ labour peace, industrial harmony and the -democratiz_ation of the work place by following the primary objectives of labour laws legislation 13 • The 9 • Applicant's to the preliminary objection . I . 10 1966 (EA) 514, at p. 520 11 ibid 12 See,Reli Assets Holding Co. Ltd·. V. Japhet Casmil & 1500 others HCLD Revision No. 10 of 2014 at Tabora -~ . . , op.cit note 12 at p. 16 ·3 ··- ... Principal. objects par-·exa:npli (for example) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act 14 , ·include interalia:- (a) To. promote economic development through economic efficiency productivity and social justice. (b) To provide the legal frame work for effective and fair employment relations. ~:;(~~ {c) J'~'i:,'t'½. (d) To regulate the resort to industrial action as a 1n(#f!nS · o resolve . ·. et1ttl? ~ . disputes. " "'::---.;,)', . . t-.lt~· ~i\~- .·~ . -_ (e) To promote a frame workforthe r~soltJtLon· ·-·~J~~ dfdispute by Mediation ··- "':° --~~l'.-~-- and Arbitration and adjudication. f~t,--,~\- · 't. . \1i~; ,;; ..-7<•;~t,,-' ··\.::~- -~\t~. ~ (f) To give· effect to the'.l!.fJVis/dn\qJ"tf?fJConstitution of the Unitei:I • ~t.tt;,,c . \[\ _ .·1~{. Republic of Tanzania ~( 1977 'ifl,§.P [pr as they apply to Employment \\,;_. '"iji:;t;J~t-f and Labour Relations ahcl,conditions of work, and . f~~t~ :·•?i~~~t;~r:tte?~ (g) Generally to give;,;effect to the core convention of the International -' . ·{f!fu., ":~t;\ Labour~Orgaoisl/t{or/"}15._ well as other ratified conventions1- 5• ., $i,tJ,i~:,i{\,;,;\-;;:::l1;;,c -,~;. It is therefor~ clear~ that in order to achieve legal justice and other i-~W~t\-- ..~ & Zl purposes leatj'[n"g:,;\t9tt1a8our peace and industrial harmony the labour ~ sfsi, . legislatiorj'-~lW~r~\\~n~cted to simplify and streamline procedu·res hence %\~. . -f. ,~~--,~¼/!~~-- ~ oveh;QEdows.\,.,gther legislation. The Labour Court legislation therefore to ~<¾,;,;. ,?,,,··-·;;-.-~ .. quote PfOJfessor ~,tq·· Annan, ,., Sasson et.al in their book Essential Labour Laws 16 South Africa (where our laws are in parimateria) thus:- ··. ·... The Act also simplify and streamline procedure as far as dispute resolution procedure are concerned where 14 Act No. 6 of 2004 Cap 366 RE 2009 is :b' 'd I I ' 15 Essential Labour Laws Coliective Labour Law Vol. 2 third edition !002 4 : .-,;~ · :-· -~.. ~. ·.· there is always, thepossibiiiiy that.c:1speqts of(pro_c?du.r~ (the procedure a party mµst follow .to, have,.a dispute , 1 r , · resolved) overshadows substance... the Act .. has been ' • ! drafted in a revolutionary style and language, that is simple and free of technica(ity easy to understand. . This "" should not misled us into thinking. that everything,ii,1$_ . ~'\\ straight. forward many of the provisions of tP ~"· d stilt' -require. careful interpretation. .. 17 . Th~ Labc;)Ur Court Rules as legislation a60~4, Jaws are not an . . '~ 1 ~- exception they do simplify and streamline ri proce r\~~ _In order to achieve 1 the purpose and objecti'les of the legi_§lati~7,tJ~t is social justice vis-a- ., , ,.~ I ~~! · · : vis Legal Justice. Social Justic IJi*'~bor:r~yv t J:~ vvords of EIieen Baldry and ~~~Jl ' I Ruth Maccaustand in their aper~ .,;;tilled "SQcial Justice in Development18 " explain thuf:- . . ... The word5..~" o~a ea,§._t concepts of Social Justice are . "f'.~€~~ -~? . I used i!J ,.,,~ •;• cg12,te~ ifPhere people understand Social be about fairness beyond individual · . •• emphasis mine) • I I 1 Lt_ } r Court Rules clearly spotlight the requirements of the -~~Jf I . Labour Court. It directs th~. avenue to follow in ,be -filed in the filing of affidavits. For easy of reference I will reproduce the relevant Rule u~~ : ~ . EIieen Baldry and Ruth Maccaustand unpublished paper 2008, at p:7 19 ·• op.cit note 18 '5 in extenso (at-length):- 24 {3) the app/i(ation shall be supported by an affidavit ·which shall clearly and concisely set out.1- (a) The names and description and address of the parties. .., {b) A statement of the material facts 9 · .ilif' chronological order on 'Af.fiic. · application is based. ~ ... . -~~ (c) A statement of legal iss1/i!s.,Jhat arise f;;.lt v.if~,. from the material facts/aod , '=:\~ "'"<, (d) The reliefs sought ,eed/phasfs"tC!JineJ0 :t:f.f;?,, The Respondent has chaUeilged ;; he affidavit of the Applicant . l\ contravenes the provisions of OfdE:!r 19 oft e Civil Procedure Code21 , but : ~ii~~~ ,· with respect . to the Responaent's sul5missions, the Civil Procedure Code ,• ~ . ~.. '~*" does nqt apply in the LaboY,,~~rt save only where there is a lacuna in the Labour Court~~.RuJE:s~r~ tj!Jmce the inclusion in the affidavit of the ~ ~·.... ' ~C9. ~~$ ~- . Applicant t r ·en ou n't is not a sin because it is the requirement of the 22 affidavits jp" f:COr ance to. Rule 24 (3) of the Labour Court Rules • . H!!~~~~~ . 8 ~ • D~ijring un Wc.;14!, "IS an affidavit the Court of Appeal of Tanzania in D.B. 'x~~' 1 \:;;'£! ~~..,.t~ ShaptJya andi'Company Limited V.B.M. International BV stated the '.A 3 . following~a§~egards affidavits in totidem verbis1 .(in many words):- .. .Affidavit has been defined as a written document containing material and relevant facts or statement 20 op. cit note 3 21 Cap 33 RE 2002 the CPC n . . . op. cit ~Ot\;! .3 (GN No. 106 of 2007) 23 Civil Application No. 53 of 2002-CAT a single Justice of the Court of Appeal was defining the fe_rmination affidavit .. 6 relating to the matters in question or Issue and sworo · • I · by·· the deponent · before , a person or officer duly . I . authorized to administer any oath or affirmation or take · any affidavit. It follows from this definition. that an · affidavit is governed by certain rules .and "' requirements that have . to · be . followed..i£t . ,/E..'if' ·,w (emphasis mine) Now stepping into _the shoes of the Learnea}-Jpstice of /Xppeal on the above wisdom I think by and large that the Laq ur GqJJJ1 is not exception .· . . .. a~ . -~" . . in its Rules. Thence affidavits in t~e Labour Co,. · ,-.~les) are governed by certain rules and requirements that h.~v · :~.,,{ ·'!lowed. The governed ~~$, ' ,iff'JJJfi.!,,, ~ "',,;;~ rules and requirements may f'"e fish~:Q f~om the· Labour Court Rules notebien Rule 24 (3) (a), (b), ,Ee anc((d) 25 • Thaf fact that the Civil ., #.~ ' Procedure Code 26 , applies -~~LD the La our Court only where there is a ~ 1 ' • ~l'.;. -~ ' • ' lacuna 1n the Labour Court Rules w should not be taken. that the later . fot*e-r, ~ • I 27 contradicts the qti,;ather it overshadows s~bst~nce simplifies and streamrn f-"''.~~edgre 28 • And above all fulfill ,the objectives and -i~~ and objectives of the labour laws le 1slation is to advance econo.mic development social I justice labour peace, industrial harmony and I democratization of the wor~ place by fulfilling the ,I . 24 op. cit not 2~ O.B Shapriya and Co. Ltd. V. Bish International BV 25 op. cit note 3 26 op. cit note 21 27 op. c,t. note 16 28 • Proffessor Basson, op. cit note 16 7 primary objectives of the Act .. (and) one of the primary objective is to provide for more effective dispute resolution procedures and mechanism for both dispute of right 29 and dispute of interest!0•.. to keep the procedures underlying labour litigation as simple in order to speed up litigation· ... n!Jme/y. delays... (emphasis mine) <ft;}:'.;__ ,;y '\'if:-:. y<i\.,_ Therefore the grand task is towards achieving social justice vis-a-vis '.;:-.·' . Legal Justice. The difference between legal Just!2e anq Social Justice was · ~-;;.~._ ~-.-i.::;~ pointed out by Professor Surya Naraya~''\t-MJ~ra, in his book tilted Introduction to Labour anctln~ustrial --l~w~,:'lfia,~":- ... Social Justice is di#~;ent;;Cfrom~:\e;;; Justice. The \:~{;, ~-:::-tr·.' -~:;)< 7 different is not of obfe~tive bu( aim at dispensing . ~.t:. Justice. The diffeient .:.:.y-;9. is due~'two reasons:- (i) Social ;uitic._;ft:gjms at doing Justice between claS§/~§.~~~f~odttr.!nd not between individual. -:>(ii)_ Thfi;[l1;t:h9d';~hich it adopts is not ~n orthodox ?<c.,.:f'.·~73;;,;~redrto the method of municipal law. Justice -~>: >.:•r .. ;_'/ . '., . dispensed according to the law of master and . >; ,,_;.:. ;·t':?- ;;,,7:~ f::'__ '~servant based upon the principle of absolute :. ;~-;":.~::-: freedom of contract and doctrine of laissez faire, 29 A dispute of right is a dispute about the interpretation of application of already existing right. Th~se rights may originate in the common law (such as the right that an employer has to give reasonable commands to. an employee) in contract (such as the right to overtime pay contained in the existing contract of employment or in a collective agreement) or in legislation (such as for example; up right not to be unfairly terminated) '. 30 A dispute of interest is a dispute about the creation of a revision right (such as employees demanding that their employer must provide their children with after school care where this has never been done) or more commonly about the variation of an existing right (for example, where employees demand on increase in wages) 31 th · Prof~ssor Surya Narayan Misra introduction to Labour and lndustriai La·w 14 ed. Central Law Publication Darbhanga Colony (1994) Alahabad • •. 8 , I ':i''.Yl Is- legal "fus'tice. ·..A.:soilaf. J11istice,i]fs-··$om~'fi#ng \\!···. ifrore·:'than'.'.'mete•J:Je.istice,· it· is~-a'.•phl/osophy · · supei-lm{iOsed upoh ·the Jer1ar~ystem :.:F(e't,Phfisis :. : ·:. mine). . •: ~_.. i ·. · · • · :: ·. ,._ . ··/ 't· : : . i, . ,'• '.•L•. •,_.-~••:'. . , • :', .'•t:-, ·' ' · te, : I • On the• foregone ._supra. the preUminary. objecti,on .. -r.aised by the •, I • • • Respondent is by and large unsustainable and I dismiJ -~ : : · -NevE!ri:heleSs, be. that as it may 1:he Court has, sll~ motµ unearthed ·: def~cts i~. the ·notice ?~ _application.:,and affidq4t. ·o· ~ Applicant V'{hich. · ct.iills _the_ whole revision and turns to- a notlilA,_ ,i~of>etent). There is non-c1tat1on of Rule 24 ( 1) an~) citation of' Rule 28 (l) of the Lapour Co rt.~~les with ·irs .paragraph (a) or r' ~ ur .\:1Urt -Rules''.- . Non- (b) or (c) or (d) and (e)34 or_a11\tthem rffl:hever .app:licable there is also non-_citation of Section 9~,,;1· paragf~phs (a) ·and (b)r· N~n-citat~on _of Section 91 (2) of the, .Em O'f;ment and Labour Relations Act with its . ~. . . . . i' .. . ~ . . 36 paragraphs (a) ;_ .Q _.,J:) • Therefore non-Gitation of section, . I· , 1 ~~- p r graphs is 1tantamount to ~on-citation of the . . enabling_prov1s· •. e• law. The, Court . of Appe 9J h.actt_~tr~ssed I this point . in ,the p ojec ~ anager Es-Ko Interna'tional Inc. !Kigoma I " . v.. Vicent J. N ·49uniUi~- in the following_ words:-. ... It -is now settled law that wrong citation ofi the la~ section, subsection and/or paragr?Jphs of _tlie Jaw or" 32 op.cit note 31 33 of:/. cit nofe1 3-- -0•,:~ .:::· ,. ' . 34 ibid. .: I 35 · " op. cit note 4 ' I 36 ibid . 37 Civil·Appeal No. 22 of 2009 CAT at Tabora (unreported) per Rutakangwa, J.A. . . :g ,. ••' i I . . . . -.C:.·:---r-c- -------~- ._,~·---:--•···· . '· 1 ,. ··non-citation .will not move. the Court ·to dot what it is : ·, ·· . being ·asked to do and accordingly the application. is_ ,incompetent .. 38 The affidavit of the Applicant in the verification clause has no name "' ' . of the person who verified the information. The Jurat of atte_s.tation in the ~) ._,4, - ' Applicant's. affidavit is not properly drafted as per 1 fH' _ stheaule f0 the ·Oaths and. Statutory Declarations Act3 9 • The Applicant has· own format _contrary to the said_ law because:- . · .:. Where under any law for the time""' --~~rce any person is required or is entitled to ma e4> a statutory declaration. The statitr;.rr ,~~Ela,t;g_lio all be in the J-4::; --~ ~~.. form prescribed to thZs, Act. ·~Prpviq~d that where under ~~- ~~~~~i;w~ any written law a fol:. . of'&statutory declaration is ,iii)f prescribed for us· r the puipose of the law such form s\:,, may be used for-,,t It is. not knovy,n w ~~re the Applicant got his format and under what · law. The for,·,. _,, . ~ . ~w- . contravei:fti,t,. ~h.ee8s ""-w . ·,1h.. jj ~ . of'the"· jurat of attestation adopted by the Applicant ana requirements of the schedule to the Oath a~d ~ .~,£,, ~r St;fotiry D~~~ration Act, quoted above. The counter affidavit of the ResponffeJitils also defective as there is no place shown where the Oaths was taken contrary to Section 8 of the Notaries Public and Commissioner for Oaths Act41 • - 38 ibid 39 Oaths and Statutory Declaration Act Cap 34 RE 2002 40 ibid section 10 41 Notari.es Public and Commissioner for Oaths Act_Cap 12 Section 8 " 10 . . - - -·--·-- , -- -.: ~ ---4w- - - - ---•~·--..,.....,.- . Lastly. the: counter affidavit df .the Respondent,· is· not endorsed .,_, I 42 contrary to Se_ttion 44 ( 1) of the Advocate Act and. the holding of the ' Court of Appeal in the case of Ashura Abdulkadiri VsThe Manger Tilapia Hotel 43 • The defects demonstrated in this ruling above are the .,, thor_n to the fresh of the revision application and have completely chilled .. .&-•. the whole application. Hence the instant application is ·:fficoi;pp~~ent ~.nd in I ; • •~f% t~ the totidem verbis (many words) of the Court of :Ap~al °t~;Burhan . . ' 'l'.<,i,, Abdulkarim t/a EAU Enterprises V. NMB JamhQri ;BrantlJ Bukoba 44 , thus:- , :· .· . 'i:b .. ·: ···\,, . . ... The incompetency means there'\ts "'o/YQ, application ,i,, '~~ . before the Court which can be ~ /fhdral/Jn1 ,,...,• f'~:£~ amended or ""'•~¢. ~ ~• I adjourned consequentfr;1\he·,,~ppffc1ti~rl;s rejected -~nd instead is hereby ordl~d tha~~1fHe::Jiplication il', be and is ,f,;;,_ ~ I' ~ struck out of the re.aord~'lt·~~,. · ' I I entirely and sub$cril5e~ the above Court of Ap8eal decision which I . f'!ri'tr,..,_ . am vinculum jurif(boµn to ·legal necessity) to follow. This application is ~herefore ~i~'ea '\. 9~tead is hereby ordered tha~ the application for revision be;1ana':Iis·.- s nuck··out of the record. ~~- .., . ·· 1 ' ~ . '· n the:~v;e,sons (reasons) detailed supra in this ruling. I l't \JJ~,.U\ . I . LS. MiJawa I JUDGE 30/04/2015 ·I -ii Advocates Act Cap 341 RE 2002 .i 43 i Civil Appl. No. 2/2005,CAT At.Mwanza, per Msoffe, J.A. · 44 45 Civil Application No. 7 of 1996 CAT (unreported) . per l')lyalali, C.J. as he then was 1- Ii op.cit, note 44 11 . However· in· order- to do.Justice,' the Applicant is given an· automatic- . . leave to re-file a propef application for ~evision within twenty eigr\t (28) days from today. ~~~~ LS. M1pawa . JUDGE 30/04/2015 Appearance:- . ~ ~ -~ 1. Applicant: Mr. Sandi, Advocate assisted by Ml:S Diana, Aavocate and . . ttiN' -t~~ · Joyce· Kirway, Human Resources of the A -~-licanfJtitiW 2. Respondent: Present in person. I.5~1~ JUDGE 30/04/2015 12