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 dispute was time-barred as the applicant filed the claim beyond the prescribed 60-day limitation period, and pre-court reminders or negotiations did not extend or restart the limitation period. The applicant was bound by the date of dispute stated in the pleadings and could not rely on continuing breach or reminders to circumvent limitation laws.
Source excerpt
High Court Labour Division dismissed a revision application challenging retrenchment, holding that the applicant accepted terminal benefits and was estopped from disputing the termination.
The Court of Appeal held that the High Court wrongly decided a new issue not framed before the CMA, quashed that decision, and remitted the revision for further hearing.
There was no permanent written contract of employment between the parties as alleged by the Respondent. The confirmation letter did not constitute a contract, and no documentary evidence of a permanent contract was produced. Oral evidence could not supersede the lack of documentary proof. The Respondent refused to sign the offered contract, and the Applicant followed proper procedures in terminating the employment. The award of compensation for unfair termination was not justified.
Source excerpt
The High Court upheld a CMA award in a retrenchment dispute, finding valid economic and structural reasons, proper consultation, and no entitlement to remaining contract salaries.
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 failed to prove the respondent was a probationer or daily worker and did not provide a written contract as required by law. The arbitrator was justified in finding the respondent was employed for an unspecified period and that termination was unfair both substantively and procedurally. The award of 12 months' salary compensation and other terminal benefits was proper under the law.
Source excerpt
The applicant failed to prove the respondents committed the alleged misconduct, as there was no direct evidence linking them to the theft or overloading, and discrepancies in weighbridge records were not resolved. Procedural fairness was also lacking as the investigation report was not served to the respondents. Thus, the termination was both substantively and procedurally unfair.
Source excerpt
The arbitrator erred by shifting the burden of proof to the applicant and admitting unreliable and improperly listed evidence. The respondent failed to prove both valid reason and procedural fairness for termination. Termination was both substantively and procedurally unfair.
Source excerpt
Explore more
