20141224 TZHC Dar es Salaam

1 •., .:~t .. Ir,. • ti: IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL CASE NO. 141 OF 2010 YASIN NGASONGWA, PAUL NYOHA & OTHERS .................................. APPLICANTS V CONSOLIDATED HOLDINGS CORPORATION .............................................. RES PON DENT Date of last Order 18/12/2014 Date of Ruling 24/12/2014 · RULING A.Shangwa, J This is an application for review of the Ruling of this Court given on 2nd June, 2011 by Mushi, J (rtd) in Civil case No141 of 2010 in which it was held that this Court has no original jurisdiction to entertain the suit as it involves a trade dispute and that the suit itself was time barred. After so holding Mushi, J dismissed the suit. 2 By ruling that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, Mushi, J (rtd) followed the decision of the Court of Appeal of Tanzania in Tambueni Abdallah and 89 others V. National Social security fund in which it was held that the High Court has no original jurisdiction to entertain trade disputes. It is common knowledge that decisions of the Court of Appeal are binding on this Court. So, Mushi, J rtd was correct in holding that this court has no original jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff's suit which is a trade dispute pure and simple. In considering as to whether or not the suit was time barred Mushi, J was of opinion that it was time barred. He said that under item 10 of part 1 of the First Schedule to the Law of Limitation Cap 89 R. E. 2002, a suit for the recovery of any sum by virtue of a written Law, in this case, the Employment and Labour Relation Act No 6 of 2004 must be instituted within six years from the date ·3 of accrual of the cause of action but in this case the suit was instituted 12 years after the accrual of the cause of action as the individual salary under payment for the month of January, 1998 expired on 20 th June, 2004 but the suit was filed in this Court on 15th October, 2010 without extension of the Minister of justice to file it out of time as per S. 44 (1) of the Law of Limitation Act and without a plea of exemption under 0. Vl 1 r, 6 of the Civil Procedure Code Cap 33 R.E. 2000 showing that the Law of Limitation is not applicable. For me, I am satisfied that Mushi, J was also correct in finding that the plaintiffs' suit is time barred. In general, Mushi, J was correct in dismissing the plaintiffs' suit on grounds that this Court has no original jurisdiction to try it and that it was time barred. 4 The factors that the Court has to take into consideration in applications of this nature are laid down under 0. X Lll r. 1 of the Civil Procedure Code Cap 33 R.E. 2002. These are as follows:- (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the Applicant or could not be produced by him at the time the decree was passed or order was made; or (ii) Some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) For any other sufficient reason. None of the above listed factors exists in the present case. Therefore, I dismiss the application for review with 5 Delivered in open Court in the presence of the Applicants and in the absence of the Respondent. ~ Shangwa, JUDGE 24/12/2014