utt project and infrastructur development plc vs yusuph nassor 2020 tzhcld 3792 27 november 2020

utt project and infrastructur development plc vs yusuph nassor 2020 tzhcld 3792 27 november 2020

The Commission for Mediation and Arbitration had jurisdiction as internal appeal was optional, not mandatory. The applicant proved only one offence of dishonesty, providing a valid reason for termination. However, the termination was procedurally unfair as the respondent was denied a reasonable opportunity to be heard due to the employer's refusal to adjourn the disciplinary hearing despite the respondent's valid request. Therefore, the respondent is entitled to compensation for unfair termination, not reinstatement.

Citation
utt project and infrastructur development plc vs yusuph nassor 2020 tzhcld 3792 27 november 2020
Parties
Applicant: U.T.T. Project & Infrastructure Development PLC; Respondent: Yusuph Nassor
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
27 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Labour Revision / Judgment
Outcome
Application partly allowed; CMA award set aside; compensation awarded to respondent.
Legal Topics
Unfair Termination, Jurisdiction of CMA, Exhaustion of Internal Remedies, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness, Compensation for Unfair Termination
Source Language
English
Labour Law Unfair Termination Jurisdiction of CMA Exhaustion of Internal Remedies Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness Compensation for Unfair Termination

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

U.T.T. Project & Infrastructure Development PLC

Applicant

Yusuph Nassor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Revision / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration had jurisdiction to entertain the matter
  2. 2 Whether proper procedures were followed in determination of the dispute
  3. 3 Whether the reason for termination was valid and fair

Ratio Decidendi

The Commission for Mediation and Arbitration had jurisdiction as internal appeal was optional, not mandatory. The applicant proved only one offence of dishonesty, providing a valid reason for termination. However, the termination was procedurally unfair as the respondent was denied a reasonable opportunity to be heard due to the employer's refusal to adjourn the disciplinary hearing despite the respondent's valid request. Therefore, the respondent is entitled to compensation for unfair termination, not reinstatement.

Court Disposition

Application partly allowed; CMA award set aside; compensation awarded to respondent.

Orders

  • CMA decision revised and set aside
  • Applicant to pay respondent TZS 53,247,840 as compensation for unfair termination