20100928 TZHC Arusha

t - /"°'.•'- - , I'1--:::, _) J l. . lf . : / I I ! i : !· • .. I I·_. I'. . I. '' 0 ; I .• <' •• ,•:••..-:;,.., . ,; ·.play or whether the other party was given a say on the issue. (-ii- . rocedure was improper. !

I I I The proper procedure to be followed when a referral is filed . . together with an application for fOndonation has been discussed in a ·: . I . . _ -nu_m~er of cases by this court. IJ one such decisions, J. w. Ladwa and Peter Kimote, LC revision No. 52;{2009/ it v,Vas observed that: "My interpretation of the la~ is that it; is not enough that the complainant/employee files :the condonation form. When the i dispute is time barred, the CMA has no powers to entertain it, unless it has heard and grc1nted an application for extension · of time i. e condoned the delay as per prescribed procedure I , 1 .... the procedure for processing con'r:lonation is specifically , I . provided for under rule li. and 29 of the rules.; The said I ; . procedure requires that qfter receiving the respondents . application for condonationJ the CMA should serve the same on the applicant as per rule 29 (5) then proceed to hear and . determine it under rule 29 boJ or (11). Now, that procedure . i 11 does not, appear to have been I followed, in this case.... The,. point ~ . was further explainetji in KIOol LTD and Kennedy Chalamila, LC revision No. 147/2008, that:! "Perhaps to remove doubt\ as to when and how the issue of limitation of time shouldi be heard and decided by the Commission; I should drat attention the following provisions I ' · of the rules: First, ,the Co'(nmission can process ~ime

barred , I • : , disputes. following : application by :the referring party as · t I •· - . I . I I explained in 'the cases cit~d above. Second, under rule 31 of (2] ; . - ... - ·_/:' .· ' the rules, "the Commission may condone any failure to comply with the tim:e frame in these rules on good cause'~ \ That rule in my opinion, gives a wider power to the 1, Commission to proc~ed in a time barred dispute provided it shows on record, its reasons for doing so .... ''(Commission \. refers to CMA) v· \ :·· ' . L· In this case, t~e arb\trator simply stated'. that 'delay has been ·, co_ndoned'~ that. did npt suffice. The CMA had to decide the issue and . give f-easOns for its decisio~, in my considered opinion, failure 'to do ; s0' ·amounted to a material irregularity sufficient to vitiate 1 proceedings. \· \ _There is another andmaly ob~ious from the CMA record of 1 proceedings. The arbitrator foiled to observe the principles prescribed ; . u·nder ,,, rule 22 of the Labouri Institutions : (Mediation .. and Arbitration Guidelines) Rules, GN 67/2007 regarding crucial stages of arbitration. I .. ! A.i no stage were the disputef issues clearly stated, as such a crucial issue of whether there fas ar employment relationship between the - p~rties which has beeri raised in this application was not preci$ely . dealt with. A~ a result, the de~ision and relief were. contradictory. , . ,. ! •

' I \. I ' '. ,, I The arbitrator found that; nrume imebaini kwamba v1ahusika walikuwa wanafanya kazi kindug,.) na kwa msingi wa kusaidiana/~ meaning . I the.re w~s no employment rel1tionship ,betvveen the parties. Despite .,'• I :0 • ' ' \ 1, I , thqt conclusion, . the arbitrator ordered payment of severance \. I . allowance prescribed under section ~4 of the Employment and I ' "i [3] .... .. "'-\ r . ., -........... r ' .-t,. : I • 'i II , .. i ' [4] i,_1,.. '{: :-~f .,:f ._,, -1~·;:' ,.,· • :, ~ : ;;,; 'r. ':•; . ~' •V ·~ . -·i ,,,, ... ..<•;:•l~1.•t_;:•1~,'•,.,.,,_... ~•.,i, . i' '' - - - . g1v1ng reasons for thJt decision amounted to failure to exercise'· ' 1-+::.,;-.. - and lthat .. ff!Sted tllrisdiction I f<iilllre to identify _ issues - amounted _ to ii ,' ": .;,Jriiateria/ irre ulari in 'conduct - .• ' , ·C I 'of the roceedin ' s. Due to_ -my said;, ,• . '_.,.,: ._·._ - --d;(c/sio~, ,.,_, __ , .,_ I-- use Powers I ~este9 I - in!"this - cou~:iu}1:g'.t • J +- . ;rul~i2i~[._9fthe ' -' • LC- 'f i- · yt\Pr;t!l t~ guash an9 set afide the <I:MA procee?i~gs, award ,att orders. l 1 1 _ !i-_:•,Tbe diSpute is reinitteQ to be processed afresh accordillg to law 1 _- • : .: ji~:\:~~~e'kC:i~g with the iss I e of limitation of time. - · ! li';Jit:,_ri!~1,~ ,. ' I ' · j' : . ,, '' ' i. ti !i<t> , -I - ! ____ ,.- _, ,,: '11,-;;~. ,,_,' -,, , .' ,. '.··,!11\~f,~f"'-d,!i,.·,.;,, ,.::J!·.

, . 29/9/2010 . . I ·' - - re , . . Ji::/'~~t:r};·"' -· .; .- · - .r -; > .'' i1'0rder: This decision wi/11:je delivered to the parties on my behalf in t -•, 'J:Arusha by Hon. JlJdge S. ~Oshi Who: will be On rsion. File ~i~fled _ ••- -_ 1:py.erJ7 tBF ~~gistrart fac'litate th~ exercise,;:l,·ffw : j; ' -i' ?•t' -.'ii _; . .'•'] ·, ;1 · - . --'. • '·:! jl· i .• - : ' - • {l''';)I - : l ,. -f/! '\!· ,?-_ - i I, @r.: Ii·- ' ',,'-

JUDGI 29/9/2Q10 i j. 'i, ···•i. I ••'. t· _ jF[Et\, ,;. ~f~fifsr;i;, "> _ . -.~<:J!r\i:::: ·: . :, ·-· .. i ' [6] _ , 1'