REV NO 763 OF 2025 VALLIS TANZANIA LIMITED VRS GHALIB ABDUL AZIZ 0001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA LABOUR DIVISION AT DAR ES SALAAM LABOUR REVISION APPL NO. 763 OF 2025 (Arising from CMA/DSM/ILA/81/2023/56/2023) CASE REFERENCE NO. 202501121000000763 BETWEEN VALLIS TANZANIA LIM ITED..................................................... APPLICANT VERSUS GHALIB ABDUL A Z IZ .......................................................... RESPONDENT RULING Date of last Order: 28/ 02/2025 Date of Ruling: 27/ 03/2025 MLYAMBINA J. This ruling is in respect of the preliminary objection to the effect that; the application is hopelessly time barred for being filed outside the prescribed time. The application proceeded by way of written submissions. The Applicant was represented by Counsel Michael Yudas Mwambeta, and Rashid Hezron Kyamba, for the Respondent. Counsel Kayamba submitted that the Respondent was the employee of the Applicant from 2014 working as Warehouse Assistant Supervisor and paid basic salary of TZS 1,698,571/= monthly. It is alleged that at the end of the year, December 2022 the Respondent was experiencing cough, chest pain difficult in breathing and generalised body weakness. That, the AMANA HOSPITAL diagnosed him and discovered that he has ASTHAMA and COPD hence he had to attend medical clinic after two weeks for three Consecutive months and close monitoring. That, the Respondent submitted the Medical Report to the Employer, surprisingly the Applicant without due process of the law handled him the letter of termination by reason of redundancy. Aggrieved by the termination, the Respondent opened a complaint against the Applicant before the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration (herein CMA) whereby the dispute was decided on his favour on 31/10/2024. Being aggrieved by the said decision, on 12/01/2025 the Applicant filed this application. Counsel Kyamba argued that the objection is based under Section 91(-l)(a) o f the Employment and Labour Relation Act [Cap 366 Revised Edition 2019] (herein ELRA). He stated that the CMA Award was delivered on 31/10/2024 before Hon. Kokusiima, L and served to the parties on 6/11/2024. That the Applicant filed the Revision application on 12/01/2025 which was 73 days from the date when the award was delivered. Hence the application was filed out of time by the Applicant for 31 days. It was Counsel's Kyamba view that the days ought to have been counted next day from the date when the award was delivered. In support of the submission, he referred the Court to the case of Alex Machumu v. W.S. Insight Ltd (Revision No. 531 of 2020) [2021] TZHCLD 436 (27 September 2021) Reported Tanzlii. In the upshot, the Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the application with costs. On his part, Counsel Mwambeta without westing precision time of the Court conceded to the preliminary objection that the application was filed out of time. However, he urged the Court to struck out the application without costs so as to allow the Applicant to follow other procedures for instituting this dispute. As rightly submitted by Kayamba, the time limit for filing revision applications against CMA's decision is provided under Section 91(l)(a) o f the ELRA (supra) which provides as follows: 91.-(1) Any party to an arbitration Award made under section 88(10) who alleges a defect in any arbitration proceedings under the auspices of the Commission may apply to the Lab our Court for a decision to set aside the arbitration Award- (a) within six weeks of the date that the award was served on the Applicant unless the alleged defect involves improper procurement In the case at hand, the award was delivered on 31/10/2024 and served to the 6/11/2024. Counsel Kayamba for the Respondent urged the Court to count days next date from when the award was delivered. In light of the above provision, the prayer is declined in this case. The provision directs that it is six weeks from the date the award was served to the Applicant. The counsel has not stated any justifiable reason to deviate from the clearly stated provision. Thus, the discission of Alex Machumu (supra) is distinguishable to the circumstance of this case. Counting from 06/11/2024 to 12/01/2025 when the Applicant filed the present application makes a total of 77 days which is out of six weeks (42) days provided under Section 91(l)(a) (supra). Thus, the application was filed out of time. Regarding the Applicant's prayer of striking out this application, the prayer is declined. It is a settled position in range of decisions including the landmark decision of Barclays Bank Tanzania Limited v. Phylisiah Hussein Mcheni, Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2016, Court of Appeal of Tanzania, Dar es Saiaam, that the remedy for dime barred application is dismissal. In that case, the Court held that: ...it would be inequitable if we allowed one party to an employment contract to disregard time in instituting a complaint against the other party. We think matters would not come to finality as required if a party who allows grass to grow under his feet and delays in instituting an action, would only be given an order to refile it. The very object of the law of limitation would be defeated for... In the premises, since the application was filed out of time without leave, the same deserves to be dismissed. The same position was reached by the Court of Appeal in the case of Barclays Bank Tanzania Limited (supra). In the result, the preliminary objection raised by the Respondent's counsel is sustained. This application is accordingly dismissed to its entirely. This being a labour matter, I make no orders to costs. It is so ordered. Y.J. MLYAMBINA JUDGE 27/03/2025 Ruling delivered and dated 27th March, 2025 in the absence of the Applicant and presence of Counsel Rashid Hezron Kyamba for the Respondent.