Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Tanzania decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The absence of minutes of the disciplinary and appeal hearings does not, by itself, amount to procedural unfairness where other evidence demonstrates that a fair hearing was conducted and the respondent was afforded all procedural rights. The termination was both substantively and procedurally fair, and the compensation order was set aside.
Source excerpt
Termination of the applicant was substantively fair due to proven misconduct, and although procedurally unfair, the compensation of three months' salary was appropriate and within the court's discretion.
Source excerpt
The applicant failed to prove that the termination was due to genuine financial crisis caused by the new wage order, and did not comply with procedural requirements for retrenchment, rendering the termination both substantively and procedurally unfair. The award of 12 months’ salary compensation is justified as the statutory minimum for substantively unfair termination.
Source excerpt
The employer failed to comply with the procedural requirements for terminating probationary employees under Rule 10 of GN. No. 42 of 2007, constituting unfair labour practices. However, compensation for such unfair practices is limited to the remaining probationary period, not the entire contract period, to balance the interests of both parties and uphold the purpose of probation.
Source excerpt
The court found that the respondent failed to prove abscondment and failure to recover loss, but proved insubordination. Termination was substantively fair but procedurally unfair as no disciplinary hearing was conducted. The applicant, being on a fixed-term contract with three months remaining, was entitled to compensation for the remaining period, not 12 months’ salary.
Source excerpt
The applicant's termination was both substantively and procedurally unfair as there was no valid or fair reason for termination and the procedure was flawed, including failure to provide the investigation report in advance and improper hearing sequence. The applicant is entitled to compensation equivalent to the salary for the remainder of his fixed term contract.
Source excerpt
The applicant unlawfully withheld the respondent's salary without written consent, creating intolerable working conditions amounting to constructive and unfair termination. However, there was no evidence of discrimination, and the compensation awarded by the Arbitrator was excessive and not fully justified by the respondent's contribution to his termination. The award is revised to 12 months' salary, withheld salaries, salary for days worked in October 2020, three months' salary in lieu of notice, and severance pay for one year.
Source excerpt
Termination was substantively fair due to proven absenteeism, but procedurally unfair as the applicant was denied proper right to be heard; disciplinary hearing procedures violated Guideline 4(6) of GN. No. 42 of 2007.
Source excerpt
The High Court partly allowed a labour revision, upholding dismissal for poor performance but finding the termination procedurally unfair because no formal warning was issued.
The applicant's contract was a fixed term contract that ended on the agreed date. The applicant was notified of non-renewal in advance, and there was no evidence of work beyond the contract expiry to justify renewal by default. The number of previous renewals does not create a legal expectation of renewal when proper notice is given. The arbitrator's findings were logical and correct.
Source excerpt
Explore more
