tumaini jamal and 5 others v tanzania postal bank6 2023 tzhc 17383 16 may 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA TABORA DISTRICT REGISTRY AT TABORA LABOUR REVISION NO. 04 OF 2021. [Arising from Labour Dispute No. 50 of 2015 from Commission for Mediation and Arbitration for Tabora and Misc. Labour Application No. 1 of 2019.] BETWEEN TUMAINI JAMAL............................................. 1st APPLICANT JOHN BUSUNGU..............................................2nd APPLICANT JOSEPH NYANGO............................................3rd APPLICANT JUMA MLANDA............................................... 4th APPLICANT PETER MAPINDA............................................ 5th APPLICANT VERSUS TANZANIA POSTAL BANK............................... RESPONDENT RULING Date of Last Order 17/03/2023 Date of Delivery: 16/05/2023 AMOUR S. KHAMIS, J. The applicants herein lodged an application for revision so as to challenge the award by the Commission of Mediation and Arbitration Tabora, in labour dispute No. 50 of 2015. Upon being served with the application, the counsel for the respondent filed a notice of opposition together with the following point of preliminary objection. 1 i) That the application is incompetent for being time barred. This ruling is in respect of the above point of preliminary objections raised by the respondent. Both parties were represented by their respective counsels. The applicants were represented by Mr. Elibahati Akyoo, Advocate, while the respondent was represented by Mr. Meiseyeki Msangi, Advocate. Mr. Msangi submitted in support of the preliminary objection that the impugned application was filed out of time contrary to the order of the Court dated 30/07/2021 which was an order from the ruling that directed the applicants to file their revision with in 30 days from the date of the ruling which was 30/07/2021. He further added that the notice of application shows that it was received by this Court on 02/09/2021 which is five days more than the 30 days set by the Court. Therefore, he prayed that the application be dismissed for being filed out of time. In reply, Mr. Akyoo averred that it is true that the ruling by the Court on 30/07 /2021 provided the applicants with 30 days to file a proper application. The applicants did comply with the order of the Court because on 27/08/2021, they submitted their application through electronic filing. They then followed up their application with the Deputy Registrar’s office on 30/08/2021 where they were told to come back on 31/08/2021 when they found out that their application was rejected. On 01/09/2021 they formally admitted their application online through electronic filing and the following day on 02/09/2021 the application was physically received by the Court. 2 The learned Advocate submitted that the whole process of filing the application commenced on 27/08/2021 as the records kept in the Deputy Registrar’s office will show the background, therefore, he insisted that the application was filed in time. On a brief rejoinder, Mr. Msangi, Advocate for the respondent argued that the applicants did not submit any proof that he made online applications on 27/08/2021. The applicants did not also adduce any evidence showing that their application filed on 27/08/2021 was rejected and neither did they give any reasons as to why it was rejected. He went ahead stating that the applicants did not also provide any evidence to show the re-submission of the application or its acceptance by the Deputy Registrar. He insisted that the applicants had access to screenshot the details challenged showing the steps taken in the submission of the application. Concluding, Mr. Msangi submitted that the submission of the application on 01/09/2021 is out of the file and prayed that this Honourable Court be pleased to dismiss the application. After considering the rival submission from both counsel^ and going through the records of the impugned application, the issue for determination is whether the application is time-barred. It is not disputed by both parties that the Court ordered the applicants herein to file their application for revision within 30 days from 30/07/2021. To that effect, the applicants were supposed to file their application for revision by 29/08/2021, however, the records of this application as stated by the respondent’s advocate show that the application was filed on 3 02/09/2021 which is four days after the expiry of the time given to them. It was the advocate for the applicant’s allegation that he filed the application through electronic filing on 27/08/2021 but it was rejected and he, later on, filed the same application on 01/09/2021. It therefore follows that this allegation needed to be proved by the applicants, nevertheless, the same is unproved to support the allegation. It is a settled law that a point of time limitation is a point of law that needs to be complied with and the consequence of not doing so is the application to be incompetent. In that case, I sustain the preliminary objection raised the respondent for it has merit. The JpplicatierrTis^hereby stuck out. No orders as to costs JUDGE 16/05/2023 ORDER: Ruling delivered in open Court in presence of the first applicant, Tumaini Jamal in person and Mr. Batagenda Mahenda, credit officer appeal explained. JUDGE //16/05/2023 4