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 quashed a CMA award, finding the employee’s termination unfair for lack of a valid reason and flawed disciplinary procedure.
The High Court upheld dismissal for misconduct over fertilizer specification, but found the process unfair and replaced reinstatement with 12 months’ compensation.
The Applicant admitted to the acts constituting gross negligence, including authorizing transactions without proper verification and using another employee's credentials. The Respondent proved the misconduct, and the Arbitrator's decision was justified. The absence of a criminal case does not preclude termination for negligence under employment law.
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 applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the respondent committed the alleged misconduct or that there was a valid and fair reason for termination. The investigation was poorly conducted, the evidence was insufficient and imprecise, and the respondent was not properly accorded the right to mitigation after being found guilty. Both substantive and procedural fairness were lacking, justifying the upholding of the CMA's award.
Source excerpt
The Respondent failed to account for the entire period of delay in filing the complaint, making the grant of condonation improper. The Mediator had jurisdiction to determine condonation, but the extension was wrongly granted. The evidence established the Respondent's negligence, justifying termination.
Source excerpt
The applicant failed to prove the allegations of gross dishonesty and theft against the respondent to the required higher standard of proof. There was no substantive evidence linking the respondent to the alleged misconduct, and all payments were made through the company's bank accounts. The termination was therefore substantively unfair. Procedurally, the respondent did not plead lack of service of the investigation report in the CMA F1, so the arbitrator should not have relied on that ground for procedural unfairness. The application for revision is dismissed for want of merit.
Source excerpt
The High Court partly allowed a labour revision, upholding substantive fairness but finding procedural unfairness for lack of employer-led investigation.
The High Court upheld the CMA award, finding the employee’s termination fair in substance and procedure and dismissing the revision application.
Applicant failed to prove respondent participated in illegal strike; demand for salary does not constitute illegal strike; dismissal was not a proper sanction as employees were demanding remuneration; termination was unfair for want of valid reason.
Source excerpt
Explore more
