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 termination of the applicant was both substantively and procedurally unfair because the disciplinary committee was improperly constituted with members of lower rank, and the respondent failed to prove valid reasons for termination as required by law.
Source excerpt
The applicant had a valid reason for termination but failed to follow fair procedure as required by law, specifically failing to properly notify the respondent of the disciplinary hearing. Therefore, the termination was procedurally unfair and the award of compensation by the CMA was justified.
Source excerpt
The court found that the applicant failed to prove valid reasons for termination and did not comply with mandatory procedural requirements, including conducting an investigation and affording the respondent a fair hearing. The compensation awarded by the CMA was correct as it was based on total remuneration. The application for revision lacked merit and was dismissed.
Source excerpt
General damages are not available as a remedy for unfair termination under the Employment and Labour Relations Act; the High Court erred in awarding general damages in the absence of specific pleadings and proof, and the proper remedy is compensation for the unexpired term of the contract as awarded by the CMA.
Source excerpt
Where termination is found to be only procedurally unfair but substantively fair, compensation must be less than twelve months' salary; awarding the maximum is improper. The High Court erred in awarding twelve months' salary compensation, and the appropriate remedy is three months' salary compensation.
Source excerpt
The Applicant failed to prove gross insubordination as the Respondent had reasonable grounds to delay compliance pending appeal, and the Applicant initiated disciplinary proceedings before the appeal process was concluded, contrary to internal policy. The correction of the award from 18 to 24 months was a clerical error and did not affect the substance of the decision. The termination was substantively unfair and the compensation awarded was justified.
Source excerpt
The respondent failed to prove the alleged misconducts of dishonest and insubordination, and the disciplinary process was procedurally unfair as key witnesses were not called and evidence was based on hearsay. The applicant did not admit to the misconducts, and the termination was both substantively and procedurally unfair.
Source excerpt
The retrenchment of the Respondent was procedurally unfair as the Applicant failed to provide proper notice, consult the Respondent personally, and disclose all relevant information as required by law. The Respondent did not sign any retrenchment agreement, and mere acceptance of terminal benefits did not amount to consent. The compensation awarded by the CMA was justified under the circumstances.
Source excerpt
The High Court partially allowed a labour revision, upholding unfair termination findings but reducing compensation from 48 months to 24 months’ salary.
The respondent failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the applicant was terminated for a valid and fair reason, as there was insufficient evidence of the alleged theft and no proper investigation or reporting. However, the employer followed fair procedures in conducting the disciplinary hearing. The termination was therefore substantively unfair, entitling the applicant to compensation.
Source excerpt
Explore more
