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 High Court set aside a CMA ruling granting condonation after the dispute had already been held time-barred, ruling that the matter could not be revived that way.
Applicant failed to provide sufficient reason for the delay, failed to account for each day of delay, and did not provide relevant supporting evidence. The arbitrator was justified in dismissing the application for condonation.
Source excerpt
The applicant failed to provide justifiable reasons for the delay between the date of termination and the date of referral to the CMA. The medical evidence and grounds of frustration relied upon predated the termination and did not cover the relevant period. Therefore, the applicant did not account for the delay as required by law.
Source excerpt
The CMA and High Court erred in holding the application for condonation as res judicata and in dismissing it without hearing its merits, as the previous matters did not determine the question of condonation. The application for condonation was a distinct proceeding and should have been heard on its competence and substance.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that a CMA mediator lacked jurisdiction to determine a condonation application, quashed the ruling, and remitted the file for an arbitrator.
The High Court’s Labour Division set aside a mediator’s refusal to condone late filing, holding the delay was technical and the dispute should be heard on merits.
The High Court allowed a labour revision, set aside the CMA ruling refusing condonation, and ordered the dispute to be heard on the merits.
The High Court restored a labour complaint out of time, holding the applicants had sufficient reason for delay and remitting the case to the CMA.
High Court allowed a labour revision, finding the CMA wrongly dismissed condonation despite the applicant’s prompt filing after receiving the ruling.
The applicant was denied the right to be heard before the CMA, rendering the proceedings and ruling a nullity. Furthermore, the applicant provided sufficient reasons for the delay, as he could not have referred the dispute to the CMA until the criminal proceedings and appeal were finalized. The CMA erred in dismissing the application for condonation without properly considering these factors.
Source excerpt
Explore more
