20161004 TZCA Dar es salaam

IN THE C~URT OF J\PPEAL OF TANZANIA · AT DAR e·s SALAAM · (CORAM: MJASIRI, J.A., MUSSA, J.A And MMILLA, J.A) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17 OF 2016 TANZANIA BREWERIES LIMITED ......... ~ ................ ~ .......... APPELLANT VERSUS- ·i ,· .,.,4. .. , - .. ,. LEO KOBELO .. .,a ■ llll ■■ llll ■■■■-m ■■■■ a ■■••·~······································ RE.SPONDENT (Appeal from the J'udgment and Decree of the High Court of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam) _ (Mashaka; J.) ' ' datecl the 29 th da'y of September, 2015 -in· Revision No. 211 of 2014 JUDGMENTOF,THE COURT 29 th August & 13 th October, 2016 - MJASIRI, J.A.~ This appeal ari~es,_fr~~ the dedsidnofthe High Court, Labour Division, (Mashaka, J.) confirming· the.decision of the Commission for Mediation a·nd . · : ~:::,;;.;.;;7TF2zrr:w~~-- Arbitration (CMA) that the Respondent was unfairly terminated. The appellant Tanzania Breweries Limited lodged a four point of . ,;",.,· - ' ,--·-. - --- memorandum of appeal which is reproduced as under: - 1. The Honourable High Court erred in law and fad in. confirming the d_ecision of the· Commission of Mediation . and Arbitration {CMA) that the 1 respondent . .- was .. unfairly terfJJlnated. while evidence -pif--reco,:d··and· the law shows ·that termination was fair. . 2. The· Honourable. Court erred. in law and fact by • • I • failing to. considerand .·· .. confirm . . that.the .:· procedure : used to . terminate.the . ' . responc/ent-a . . management .. ' ' " ~ employee. -~as pr~per and lawfui. . 3. That the_Hono_µrable (;9uf! ~rred in law and fact.in i · holding that th_e ter1J71nation of the respondent was. unfair ... while .' . there Is strong ·.· . . evidence . to. prove, .. ' that the tennination was procedurally fair and lawful.·. _·_...-·. · 4. That . the Honourable . _.- . .. Courterred ·.. .· in law. in ordering ... . . ·_ , . . . ,. reinstatement in the circumstcJnces of this case. At the hearing of the appeal the appellant was represented by Mr. Nuhu Mkumbukwa, learned advocate and the respo'ndent had the services of Mr. Karnazima Idi, ·learned advocate. Before the commencement of hearin9 we wanted t_o sati$fy ourselves · -· ,.', . whether or not there was a competent appeal before ·us. Apparently both · Mr. Mkumb·ukwa .and Mr. Idi· were anxious to proceed on the merits of the 2 " appeal. Mr. Mkumbukwa on his .part sugrnitted th 9t there is no requirement· · · - ~ ·- , ' . ·- for leave and the law does notstate that.one has to. file a certificate OQ: a·• point of law. Mr. Idi was _also. _of Jhe view that this is the correct legal position. We on our part, are of the considered view that it is important J:o determine. whether or not the appeal is properly before the Court as leaie · to appeal was not obtained as required under Section S(l)(c) of tne•·-· . .. Appellate Jurisdiction Act, [Cap 141 R.E.2002] (the Act). ' !:: The law is crystal clear. Unless provided otherwise by any other written law, Section 5(1) of the Appe11ate Jurisdiction Act, specifies under paragraf>h .... (a) and (b) of sub-sectibh (1) of section 5, the types of decisiO':_S which .;are";"::' •'.':.,. appellable as of right, and ·under paragraph (c) ofthe same-sub-section the:,. :··.:•:: decisions which require leave eith·~r of the High Court or the Court of AppeaL' Section 5( 1) proviqes . as follows:- - ' . . , .. E. r:: "5-(1) In civil proceedings/ except where any other written law for the time being in force provides otherwise/. an appeal shall lie to the_.Courl:'i31 -•· Appeal- .... · (a) against every decree/ including an ex parte - or preliminary decree made by the High Court in a suit ,3 .. · under the Civil Procedure· . Code/ . in the exercise of its (' original Jurisdiction/·. ·· {b) against the fq//9wing, orders of the, High Court made under its· original Jurisdiction -that.is to say- · .. i: ·. . (I) · an order superseding an arbitra"tion where the ' :- ·. award has not been completed within the period .... . .... , ,,·.. allowed .. · by ' . . the . . High.. Court; . . ;,. . ' (ii)· an 01-der on ·an award stated in ·the form of a special case; . (iii) an order n1odifying of correcting an award; (iv) an order staying-i:ir refusing to file an agreement to refer to arbitration;·· ~-- . '._ .= ~; ',-~ -~· ~- •.. (v) an·order-staying or-refusing to·stay a suit where · -.· . . . . .. · ther~ .... .. is . an agreen1ent to ,efer to --arbitration; . . . ., (vi). an order.fiJing :or,retusing to·.file---an.:awafd in an. . . arbit_rat.jo[J_ . . vvitfrout . . . . : .. ; . ·. ' th?.: in/erve11tion: :, . . . . : .• ~ , of the. ·High·. . . ·. ' :" ', ' ' ' ~ ·, Court·/ . (vii) an order under section 95 of the· Civil Procedure Code/ which relates: to the award of co,npehsation where an_ a_rrest or a temporary injunction is granted; (viii) an order under" any of the provisions of the Civil Procedure. Code/ imposing a fine or .directing the arrest or detention/ in civil prison; of any person, exc[!pt where the arrest at detention is in execution . '·,. : .. - . {ix) any order specified in rule. I of XLIII in the Civil Procedure Code/ or in any rule of the High Court an1ending/ or in substitution for, the rule/ {c,1 with the leave of the High , . ... . Court or of the . Court ' ·, ·, ' of Appeal, against every o'ther decree, order, judgment~ decision'orfinding of the High_ Court. [Emphasis provided]."· ·· ·: -. -· · - . . n i·s evident from th~ 'de2isi·o'n made by the High Court that the Labour legislation and the rules thereunder do not fall within the scope. -of· .. paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 5 of the Act. Therefore according to·tne:> .-:· .:. - .' ( . > .·.\· '. _i: J·· -~·:..,, ,-: ~;__ ~ .. · Act,.decisions made by the High Court, ~al:>our Division are appellable under·::· :::r:} . <;~-- . . ! ~- .•·. ·• - _, .. ;, r ,,•,. , •• ,, .:•,.,, the provisions of par~graphs . (c) of~ubsection (l) ofsectio~ 5 unless there-<':•::·.::} :' . . : ~ ·'' ·: :· '.' ·•:·. ":~ ;. . _'. .. ··•··• . . " is another written law providing to the contrary. The opening words of sub:· · ' .~>- '-· ,•c section (1) of section 5 are "unless there is another law providing to the . .__ contrary." There is nothing in th·e labour Institutions Act (Act No. 7 of 2004), the Labour Act, which provides anything to the contrary to what is laid down' . . _under sub-section(l) of s_ectioQ 5 of the Act. Section 57 of the Labour Act, 2004, provides as follows:- 5 ,. 1157. Any party to theproceedings)n theLabour-Courf. · n1ay appeai -~gal~st ihe decision of that court to the Court_of Appeal on points.of law only._/~. . . . No reference is made to the . ·issue- of leave, unlike in the Land Disputes . ',: ' i ···: •' , .. · ..... ' .~. ,: . Courts Act 2002, Act No. "t bf 2002.(the Land Act)~ where. the iss.ue of le,ive·. . .· ~. . ... is specifically provided under section 47(1),. which provides:- '~ny person iyho/saggrievedby the decision of the . High Court (lan.d Division) ,.in .the exercise. of tts; original revisiona/ or-appellate Jurisdiction/may with . , i :· ~ . the leave from tHei-ligh Cowt(land Division) appea(· ... · . to the _Court oi Appeai)i1· ·accordanc,~:·,-with, the• ....... :• .·. •'· • : 1 :_. • Appellate Jurisdiction Act. ;✓.- - •. .. . ·.• ; ·.. '\ . , .. ·. It is also .not provided. •jn ·?!hY .• ~ ;f the _labour-.legislatiqQ~ . . . .. that · ,. • ,I• ••• ~ • ,. • ~ \. : • • f •• •• ; there is an automatic right of appeal to the Court, and that leave· is not required. Given the circumstances,. Section S(l)(c) of the Act is applicable. - -: . ; . r In Zayumba Abeid Hussein· Akida & Others versus Tanzania - ,. Ports Authority, Civil Appe.al No. 18 of 2009 CAT (unreported), the Court· ···-·- . . . ' . stated thus:- 6 "Without hesitation -we are in agreement· with -Mr. Msuya that the appealisincompetent. Since it does - . not fall in any of the categories stipulated under section S{l){a) and (b) of the above Act it, was imperative ·• th(Jt _.leave .. be. applied _for. under. ( c) thereof. In the absence of leave applied for and granted the appeal is incompetent. ,, In Hussein Shabe.119.a ·Jumanne S. ·Makanyaga and 6 Others v Tanzani~ Port Authority, •civil Appeal No. ·29 of 2009. :The Court had ihis: k: :,::- ,,;·.·;·· to say:-. ''Since this isa -mat:ter: which does not fall under any of i:he'.categoties· stipulated under section 5(1){a} - ., and(b) of-the,App~llate Juitsdiction Ace ·1979 it.· follows that it wes.irnperativethatlea11e: be applied for under(c). thereof. In the absence of leave, we= have no Jurisdiction to entertain the matter. '' ,. . . The circumstances in · the Hussein Shabenga case (supra) were similar to the instant case·. The dis'pute commenced at.the Commission· for Mediation and Arbitration. Thereafter, it went on revision to the High Court · 7 - ' (Labour Division) where'. ·Mandia, J. · (as. he then was) dismissed ··tfte application h~nce the appeal;.' G_iven therequ_irenient ·under section. 57 of the Labour f\ct, the. need for leave is significant. This yvould provide an opportunity _to the High Cou~--: (Labour . Division) . to determine ·. whether. . or not there. exists a point . •. of law to:·-~.:· ' be determined by the ½0_LJrt.. It is .pbvious t~at it is not the role of the Court ·,, · .. · · · to determine the point of law to be adjudicated upon. .. In the .circumstances,.as there was .f.10 leave granted . for instituting . . . . :" :, : : ' , . ' ,'·' . ·_: . . ';. . . . . ,' ·' . . the I.: ·· appeal to the Court agai1Jstthe dec_isiQn of the_ High Court (Labour Division),· :; ,·_ · '· · ; ...' . . . . . . ~- . .;_ ~ ., ·: . . . . . the appeal is incompetent . . ..... It. is hereby . struck :_ out. We make no order as fp -~, :_. ~ -: · · : . :, . costs. ;,• -· ~- . ~.--:. :._ . ·, . . . Order accordingly i .... . ... .. ·•· .· ... : : .-- ~· . . . . . DATED at DAR Es-:sAlAAMthis 4 th :day-of.Q_ctober~ 2016. •.··: .. S. MJASIRI' JUSTICE OF APPEAL K.-M.MUSSA JUSTICE OF APPEAL ·":-.:~ ' ~.,~. B.M.K. 'MMILLA _·_·<,~·:;\ ... .,~t·. JUSTICE OF APPEAL· I . c . . , .· I .certify th9t thi_s:~s a true copy of the origina'I. "c,(. \. . \ ; y:,.:•t ...,.,.,.. <:~ . . ' . ,. C ---- . • \--....,, ~;. ~ .:C,\'. • ---- "~-,!' · ---- ~~J!l:i<~Wru~--:---- - ··>::•••~~ --.. ., .._.,. . . _....,i"l!':lW"....,. EGISTRAR COURT OF APPEAL 8