tanzania electric supply company limited tanesco vs paul kavulaye mgonja 2023 tzhc 1279 12 may 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA LABOUR DIVISION AT DAR ES SALAAM MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 374 OF 2022 ( Arising from a court order dated 8/12/2021 in revision no 617/2019) TANZANIA ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (TANESCO)......................................... APPLICANT VERSUS PAUL KAVULAYE MGONJA.............................................. RESPONDENT RULING 4 /5/2023 & 12/5/2023 OPIYO, J. The applicant filed the application at handseeking for extension of time for the applicant to apply for Review of this court's order 8th December 2021, in Revision No. 617 of 2019 by Maghimbi, J. The Application is made under section Rules 24(1), (2)(a-f), (3)(a-d), 56(1), 27(2)(b) of the Labour Court Rules, GN 106 of 2007. It is supported by an affidavit sworn by Mkumbo Elias, Principal Officer of the applicant. The respondent did not file counter affidavit, as he never intended to contest the application as per the words of his advocate, one Abraham Senguji before the court on 8/5/2023, when this matter was called for hearing. What he prayed for is for shortening the time within which to file the prayed for review application as his client is seriously sick. After praying to adopt the affidavit, in support of the application the counsel for the applicant, one Christian Mahundi, principal state Attorney, submitted that their application for revision was struck out for lack of CMA records irrestpective of various orders by the court calling for the said records. He stated that, in the said order it was directed that the parties go back to CMA for the CMA to reconstruct its records of the dispute and upon conclusion of reconstruction of records. That, on the date that the records are certified, right of revision acrue to the applicant to come to this court to have the revision proceed. He continued to state that it is obvious that the CMA records have been misplaced. His further submission is that, after the said court order they went back to CMA for follow up. That, both sides made close folloups on the matter but in vain as CMA has not done anything in relation to the above court's order. They seem not willing to comply with this court order. This made them feel oblidge to file application for review of this court's above order so that they can get further orders of the court to enable the matter to come to an end. He contended that, the thought came after the 15 days within which to file such application has expired while they were still occupied with endless followups at CMA, necessitating this application for for extension of t im e .^ ® ^ f In such applications, the key factor to look into is whether the applicant has provided a sufficient reason that led to his delay to pursue his intended course and if he has accounted well for all the days he delayed to take the needed action (see the case of Exim Bank (T) Limited versus Jacqline A. Kweka, Civil Application No. 348/18 of 2020, CA, (unreported). In this case, the applicant has passed this test as his proof of tireless follow ups at CMA has been supported by the other side who also claimed the same efforts in follow up over the same thing, but in vain. Proof of one's diligence in following up the implementation of the court's direction which does not however yield the expected fruit for no fault on his part is, in my view, like what happened in this case, a sufficient ground for extending time. It is not applicant's fault that CMA has not done as it was directed. For the reason, the application is on the onset granted. The applicant should file the application for review within 14 days from the date of this ruling. I make no order as to costs.