tanzania shipping agencies corporation vs lucas machimu 31 others 2023 tzhcld 1331 22 june 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNATED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA LABOUR DIVISION AT DAW ii;l SALAAM REVISION APPLICATION NO. 108 OF 2023 (Arising from the Ruling issued on 5th December,2022 by Hon. Wiibard G.M. Arbitrator in Labour dispute No, CMA/DSM/ILA/424/2022) BETWEEN TANZANIA SHIPPING AGENCIES CORPORATION........................... APPLICANT • ■f . 1 •1 VERSUS LUCAS MACHIMU ......................................................................1st RESPONDENT OMARY K. M D E E ............................. ; ... .................. 2nd RESPONDENT UMMY A. HALFANI.................................. ................................. 3rd RESPONDENT HUSSEIN 3. KUHINDA............................................................... 4th RESPONDENT FRANK PHILBERT.......................... ............. ............................. 5™ RESPONDENT HAIKAY. MBW AMBO................................................................ 6™ RESPONDENT ABEID A. M LULA............................. .......................................... 7™ RESPONDENT HENRY C. VENANCE...................................................................8™ RESPONDENT LUGANO DUNKAN.............................. .......................................9™ RESPONDENT RAYMOND A. TA Y A R I........... ..................................................10™ RESPONDENT JOSEPH S. MHAMILW A........................................................... 11™ RESPONDENT JUSTINE H. YUSTIN E.............................................................. 12™ RESPONDENT JULIAN JUSTIN E.............................. ...................................... 13™ RESPONDENT AMINAO. M H EZI.......................... .......................................... 14™ RESPONDENT JULIETH LUSAJO M W AKYOM A............................................... 15™ RESPONDENT STEVEN A. MW AKASAKA.........................................................16™ RESPONDENT HASSAN H. S ID Y .................................................................... 17™ RESPONDENT KHALFAN S. KHALFAN.............................................................18™ RESPONDENT MARTINE J. LUSEKELO .......................................................... 19™ RESPONDENT 1 FADHILI B. MW ANGUO......... 20™ RESPONDENT ALFRED B. M SEN G I.... ......... 21st RESPONDENT MACHUMU MAGANGA........... 22nd RESPONDENT ABUBAKAR ISSA ................. 23rd RESPONDENT MARKO B. MGAYA .......... ...... 24™ RESPONDENT MARIAGORETH NAM GUZA.... 25th RESPONDENT AISHA J. MONKO ................. . 26th RESPONDENT SUZANA HAM ISI................. 27th RESPONDENT GEORGES. NGASEKA....... 28th RESPONDENT ELISHA T. BAITAN............... 29th RESPONDENT EMMANUEL MWAKIPUNDA .. 30th RESPONDENT ROBERT SAIMON MADUNDO 31st RESPONDENT KUDRA SHING'WENDA ........ 32nd RESPONDENT COURT RULING Date of last Order: 22/06/2023 Date of Ruling: 22/06/2023 MLYAMBINA, J. This is an application for revision of the decision of Commission for Mediation and Arbitration (herein CMA) in Labour Dispute No. CMA/DSM/ILA/424/2022 dated 5lh December, 2022 before Hon. WILBARD, G. M. (Arbitrator). The Respondents herein were the Complainants before the CMA against the Applicant herein on breach of contract. Prior hearing, the Respondent (Applicant herein), raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the application was time barred. Thus, in terms of Rule 10(1) o f the 2 Labour Institutions (Mediation and Arbitration) Rules, G.N. No. 67 o f2007, the application was supposed to be filed within 30 days. Upon hearing the preliminary objection, the Arbitrator sustained the objection but instead of dismissing the application, he struck out the same based on the earlier on conflicting position. To be precise, the Arbitrator stated: Tume inakubalina na hoja ya Mlalamikiwa (Mleta Pingamizi kuwa mgogoro unaoletwa kimakosa mbele ya Tume unapaswa kufukuzwa (dismissal). Lakini kwa mgogoro huu kwa minajili ya kutenda haki Tume inaona busara kuondoa (struck out) mgogoro na kuwapa nafasi wadaawa kutafuta haki yao kama inafaa. Sababu ya kufikia Uamuzi huo ni kutokana na mkanganyiko uliokuwepo awali anrtbao Wadaawa waliamini kuvunjwa kwa Mkataba ni sawa na migogoro mingine inayofatwa katika Kanuni ya 10(2) ya G.N. No. 64/2007. The Respondent (Applicant herein) was dissatisfied with such decision. The main argument of the Applicant is that the Arbitrator ought had dismissed the application and not striking out as he did in the matter. On 22nd June, 2023, when the application was called for hearing, learned Counsel Lemister Mtoni for the Respondent conceded to the application. I have taken some time to go through the impugned records. I noted the main complaint before the CMA was on breach of contract. As properly conceded by the Respondent, Rule 10(1) o f G.N. No. 64 o f 2007 {supra) requires a matter or complaint on unfair termination to be referred before CMA within 30 days. The Court of Appeal of Tanzania in the case of Stella Lyimo v. CFAO Motors Tanzania Limited, Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam Civil Appeal No. 378 of 2019 (unreported) was of the position that a complaint based on unfair termination is one and the same as a breach of contract. For that reason, the complaint before CMA ought had been filed within 30 days. Since it was undisputed that the complaint was filed beyond 30 days statutory time, as conceded by the Respondent herein, in terms of Section 3(1) read together with Section 46 o f the Law o f Limitation Act (supra), the remedy was to dismiss the application. Reference may be made to the cases of Hashim Madongo & 2 Others v. Minister for Industry and Trade & 2 Others Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam Civil Appeal No. 27 of 2003 (unreported), Sarbjit Singh Bharya & Another v. NIC Bank Tanzania Ltd & Another, Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam Civil Appeal No. 94 of 2017 (unreported) and Festo Gabriel Dindili v. Regency Medical Centre, High Court, Labour Division at Dar es Salaam, Revision Application No. 398 of 2022 (unreported). In the end, therefore, I hereby revise the impugned proceedings of the CMA in Labour Complaint No. C'MA/DMS/ILA/424/2022 by replacing the order of "Struck out" with "dismissal" ordfer. Being a labour matter, I order each partly to bear his/her own costs. It is so ordered. Y. JUDGE 22/ 06/2023 Ruling delivered and dated 22nd June, 2023 in the presence of learned State Attorney Boaz Msofe for the Applicant and learned Counsel Lemister Mtoni f '' " 5