tanzania union of industrial commercial workers vs tanzania china friendship textile coltd 2015 tzhccomd 2087 24 april 2015

3N THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED R EPU BLIC OF TANZANIA LABOUR D IV ISIO N - _ AT D A R ES. SALAAM ftlS C ELLA N EO U S LABOUR APPLICATION NO, 37 OF 2013 BETWFJiN iiVJ AND GOMMSRClAi W O R K ER S .(rtJlC O ) VERSUS *: y». V-•*% V ' TAN7.AN.XA CHINA m iEttO SH IP ' n ix u m c a r r n ...... .................................................. '.....r e s p o n d e n t ..me appr^anLi^r^< 'iy---lKCO-i filed the present application as against the Respondent mn/nniri Chinn rnend:/nic Textile requesting this Court to ir.viow the ruling of I he Registrar of this Court. The notice for review was - " J: promptly riled Uiidcr.H.tilt! ?A (1) and 27 (5) of the Labour Court Rules", The applicant, during the hearing was represented by Mr. Gilbert Learned Counsel while M/5 "Philipo appeared for the Respondent. hidden!-wiv the learned counsel for the Applicant put forward a prayer to withcUaw'the nopiiuihan tor review on what: he termed "the application h*:: been passed by events ", He did not; go further. However in reply the T J iC O connotes Tanzania Union of Incustrid! and Com mercial W orkers 'Governrn^pt Notice No. 106 of / .1 learned counsel 1’oi thci Respondent resisted the prayer to withdraw sans (without) the applicant paying costs, because the applicant knew that the case was pending before the Court of Appeal of Tanzania3, and the Respondent has loid the applicant [in the past] not to file the present application because the case: was before the Court of Appeal, but the Applicant insisted to fi>>arid now he prays to withdraw the application after the matter in the Court of Appeal had been finalized. ** % V •. * Mr Gilbert reeled thai «.hey did not have^the intention to cause trouble before the patties and court That the applicant did not file the '*rlK application 10 dishu o rne Ke.s?.Y.- iaent. ^ r'\ a$ Nevertheless i ne Advocate. for the Respondent insisted to be paid cost as the •Applicant knew rhe c’eitails of* the ruling sought to be reviewed intemfte and hue ;-;aid d ia l/' . tms faster is in the Court of Appeal" yet the Applicant rtruen ro li^i ino -present application without regard to the fact that tlx? mattcT-was bofon:' the Court of Appeal of Tanzania. *> ■’ I have duly rons'ide-ed iho submission of both parties on this issue. It is apparent clear that this application for review was filed by the applicants >* •». while knowing that there was an appeal pending before the highest court of the land to wit, the Court of Appeal in that sense filing of the review in the subordinate Court [Labour Court] was an abuse of court process and undue diligence practice so tc speak. The Court of Appeal of Tanzania is the H igher. C .o jrt of the l;*w ro m rro n lv known for its acrcno m y as CAT , The act of-the’appl’icant to file a review in this court, while knowing that-there^is an appeal pending to the Court, of Appeal concerning the matter is+jyand large a violation of the law and bearing in mind that lex .jriorj..mmge 'est viokmdia [the law must-not be'violated even by the king] the applicant TIJTCO cannot stand and speak that as Mr. Gilbert Advocate - for the applicant sari:- .. t ■ *> ./ W e d i d n o t 'n a v e t h e in t e n t io n to c a u s e : t r o u b le b e f o r e t h e p a r t i e s cine? t h e c o u r t . T h e a p p lic a n t d i d n o t file t h e • •• a p p lic a t io n t o d is t u r b t h e R e s p o n d e n t iv e p r a v c o s t n o t to b e g ra n te d , ■ Whul; was the rjison d'etre behind the motive of the applicant to file the npplio^on ii? this cei>rt when the matter was pending before the Court of Appeal? Was. the flliny of- trie application imbued v/ith elements cf bad motives, increasing backj'lO. lo court unnecessarily or was meant to cause difficulties to' the p itie s In attending the_ application which had nothing to do? £ think an inference may be drawn from every corner that the applicant had opened this case frivolous and vexatious in which case the court may yrar.*: d ie issue of costs, because the explanations in defence said by Hr. Gilben: Advocate for the applicant were in delicto [at fault] and 'mere kicks of a dyinc} horse in aiticuio mortis [at the point of deathj. There .vyas nothing, valuable spoken by the learned counsel as to why they filed the rjppMoition for review in this court without due regard to the pending and concerned matter in the Court of Appeal. In futuro (in the future) such things must not happen otherwise costs could be issued soleiy in tetrorem [a-, a warning or deterrent]. - - 1 was cmteinpiariny to pur«sh the applicant: for what-had transpired, but I decline in-the sons- that ihK niiinci must-save as a knocking on the door of the Applicant that he /'in, supposed r.o pay the costs and what- have-you, lest the- law could be'iurned an ass and a scare crow of the law and since the law Is noi a play mate of anyone then, in future* [in future] if*-ftV costs would ensue as a result of such acts of the Applicant* # | • «?•> -V' ’*£'•■ ■ 'jf In the event j g^ant fe.e application to withdraw, the' present ’ V application at die instance of the applicant's advocate. Application is withdrawn. - ’*: 'h-:. '■ I • , ■ " "$ ' * * \ ! i.' ' '-V I :V J jlS< j'^ipaWa ’■ ■■ ■- - - - J&Mk- r • ' ' //,'v;»; App£ttnHw:«:- '* • I, Apoikenl:.. Absem •- Respondent: Absent t..— - he pari ihs .were informed on the elate of the Ruling but have not appearodpt no apparent reason. Ida. ^i \\ , v- I S. Mipdwa JUDGE -)a /ivtnr. 1 c: 4