tib development bank formally known as tib investment bank vs adelicious ngowi another 2022 tzhcld 921 19 september 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA LABOUR DIVISION AT PAR ES SALAAM MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 232 OF 2022 TIB DEVELOPMENT BANK (Formally known as TIB INVESTMENT BANK) APPLICANT VERSUS * ADELICIOUS NGOWI......................... -^1% RESPONDENT MATAYA EDWARD MATUJA............... .......2nd RESPONDENT RULING 19th September, 2022 ? Rwizile, J This application is for extension of time. The applicant is asking this court to enlarge time Wthin which to file an application for revision. The application is supported by an affidavit of the applicant sworn by Menson Ngahatilwa; It has raised one point for determination, that "whether the applicant had sufficient reason for extension of time" Ms. Museti Gati is a State Attorney and stood for the applicant. She briefly argued that the CMA made a decision in CMA/DSM/KIN/R.357/17/455 without jurisdiction. i herefore, she said, since the CMA had no jurisdiction, she prayed the decision to be impugned has an illegality which should be considered as held in the case of Lyamuya Construction & Co. Ltd vs Registered Trustees of Younger Women Association, Civil Appeal No. 02 of 2010 Mr. Elpidius, learned Advocate on the other handgap^gared fpr Jie respondent. He argued that the applicant did not show ariy?reason for delay. It was his view that since the decision Was macron 21st October 2020 to date, and the applicant has not accounted for each day of delay as the case of Lyamuya (supra) held, then, this application has to be dismissed. He added that the applicant did not attach the award which she is saying is tainted with illegality. This court in his view, does not have the decision to see if it has indeed the said illegality in its face. Having heard the parties, it is important to note that, in an application for extension of time/as in the case of Lyamuya (supra), the Court of Appeal laid down principal to follow. 1st to consider whether there are reasons for delay, 2nd, the length of delay and 3rd whether the applicant was sloppy or negligent in prosecuting the case, and 4th if there is an illegality on the face of record which requires determination of the court. 2 In this case, the applicant did not account for days of delay. The award to be challenged according to her affidavit was made on 21st October 2020. This application was filed in July, 2022. It is not less than one year since then. Failure to account for days of delay as the applicant has done, it means, she was not only negligent but also sloppy. The applicant Only came with the question of illegality based on jurisdiction of the CMAto entertain the matter. The basis of her argument is that, based on the case of Tanzania Posts Corporation v Dominic A. Kalangi, Civil Appeal NO. 12/2022 the Court of appeal held that when the dispute is about Public Servants the CMA has no jurisdiction. In her view, since the applicant is wholly owned by the government then the respondents were public servants. But all in all, the applicant did not attach the decision. The court does not have the award tosee if what she alleged exists. Because it is not all employees employed in the government or in any of its institutions is public servant within the meaning of the same under the public service Act. Section 3 provides for exceptions to person on term contracts, those paid on daily or hourly rates. 3 It was the duty of the applicant to show so. The sole document to shade the light is the award which is not even attached. In my view failure to account for days of delay which is over one year, makes it difficult to entertain this application. For the foregoing reasons, this application has no merit. It is dismissed. I make no order as to costs. A.K.Rwizile JUDGE 19.09.2022 4