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 application was filed out of time as the prescribed 42-day period lapsed on 28th March 2024, a working day, and the applicant failed to demonstrate improper procurement or any valid reason for extension. Computation of time does not exclude weekends or public holidays unless the last day falls on such days.
Source excerpt
A mediator does not have jurisdiction to determine applications for condonation as their statutory powers are limited to facilitating settlement, not adjudicating legal issues. The proceedings and award by the mediator are nullified, and the condonation application must be heard by an arbitrator.
Source excerpt
The court found that the respondent followed all required retrenchment procedures as stipulated by law, including notice, disclosure, consultation, and attempts to minimize retrenchment. The applicant acknowledged most procedures were followed, and the evidence showed proper communication and consultation. The court held that the process was conducted in good faith and integrity, and there was no basis to fault the CMA's findings or award.
Source excerpt
The Mediator had jurisdiction to determine preliminary objections, including res judicata, as such issues are incidental to mediation and necessary for effective dispute resolution. The matter before the CMA was res judicata because the same parties had already settled the dispute through mediation, and the applicant was bound by the terms of the mutual agreement reached. Allowing further litigation would undermine finality and the objectives of labour dispute resolution.
Source excerpt
The Mediator had jurisdiction to determine preliminary objections, including res judicata, as these are jurisdictional issues necessary for mediation. The dispute was res judicata because the same parties had previously settled the same cause of action by mutual agreement through mediation, and the applicant is bound by that agreement.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed a labour revision application, upholding a CMA award after finding the employee’s termination was substantively and procedurally unfair.
The Court of Appeal partly allowed the appeal, reversed the CMA and High Court, and ordered reinstatement after finding no valid basis for termination on ill health.
The High Court dismissed a labour revision challenge and upheld the CMA’s condonation of delay, directing the dispute to proceed on the merits.
The High Court set aside and quashed a CMA award for lack of jurisdiction, finding no proper transfer procedures were shown on the record.
The High Court dismissed an employer’s revision application and upheld a CMA award, holding that the respondent’s termination was procedurally unfair because he was not heard.
Explore more
