bank of tanzania vs minister of labour and youth another 1995 tzhc 719 16 november 1995

T HKH C° UHT ° P ^ N Z iiO A M R ^ S SALAAM DISTRICT REGISTRY 3.5_s a laam^ MISCELLANEOUS CIVT t /’ td-dt t the b a n k o f T a n z a n i a c a t i o n n o -35 of 1 9 9 5 ........... APPLICANT VERSUS D E V E L O P M E N TR °F LAB 0 U r and youth I 2 .0W DE W KAS ANJ A | • ■> RESPONDENTS * HJBESHI, .t R U L I N G 1 s t a n d X d ^ e sp o M e n tT f ° P le a v e ’ * » have f i l e d ^ p relim in ary c* the r e s P°ndents, a p p lic a tio n i s incompetent f o r b ''- 0" 5’ na" e l y ’ th a t the seco n d ly th a t p u b llo lf>w ramed. ^ time ba - e d , and a Private individual, to Kit the 2“ “ 0t lssue against d respondent. On the first srrounri •thS complained c^2^fgf 24// 8 T. ^ 8A^ ^ 995 ar<? ar£Uins th a t w hile the <* 1968 provi des f o r * “ C t i- 18 (3) o f Aot No. 55 within whlch to f i l e ° rV Perlod of * i* months f i l i n g the a p p iic a tio n on 2v 8Z ! ° a t l0 "- o f time by about 30 days ’ the same i s out been S™ Sht and granted L , t h L ” ° eX tenSi°n o f has th e r e fo r e Pr ayed f or the * * .* - *« Again he has added th at became aware o f the d e c is io n IT a/*® SU'“in g the a p p lic a n t by the respondent, the a p p lican t I 3 date doubted a p p lic a tio n b efo re 27/7/1 ^.5 _ ‘ C J have f i l e d the On ground two a p p lic a tio n f o r p r e r o g a t i v T o ^ SUbmlSSlon th a t the in d iv id u a ls excep t p u b lic bodies -“ T ■Judicial Remedies in -J n • r" CLIVE LE'« 3 and DAVID FOULKES - * ^ ° % 1992 L °ndon 4 t t t ^ dUCL i °rt t0 Ad",in is t l'a t iv e Law, hcl* L o n d o n 1976 Mr. Mkaraba - the d i s n o ^ j . o T ^ 10: L1 * 1 ^ l f e y * = In their l"-ar-'S f f i v t l c u s »■ d e c is io n c o m p l ^ H f ’w a ^ 00“ <*e t'h at the n o t if ie d on 8/3/1995 T °" ' Z6/1^ and was 3/ 1995 . ihe a p p lica n t i s th er£ fore & 2 that the Labour Commissioner contributed to the delay. The a p p lic a n t has r e fe r r e d t h i s co u rt to the decision o f Lugakingira, J (a3 he then was) in the case of P . 3 . SHISIMA v KAMAII YA Ui.INZI NA U^ ALAVA VILAYA « SIH 0IM and ^ 0THERS (1903) I have "taken "fcinie ■fco ^ * ^ b° read the decision referrpd to . by the a p p l i c a n t . However I hasten to sa y t L t I see no rele v a n ce w ith th e „,atter a t hand. . TJ app le a n t i s supposed to advance reasons on th = ir period!"0 ^ ^ a P P ll° a tlo n stu to y I have considered the o b je c tio n s r a is e d by the respondents and I a . i n c li n e d to agree t h a t th ey the a ^ T i t - In 1 UPh° l d the Same and d l s “ « s pplication for being filed out of time. A r~. * 71 j I \ , / ■ ff ' Delivered before - A. G. BUBESHI Jiselem f o r the A p p lic a n t and JUDGE Maiaba f o r the Respondent 16 /ll/g c