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 High Court's reference to the matter as an appeal instead of a revision was a clerical error, not affecting the substance of the judgment and curable under the slip rule. However, the High Court erred in substituting reinstatement with compensation only, as compensation is not a standalone remedy but additional to other entitlements. Where termination is both substantively and procedurally unfair, reinstatement without loss of remuneration is the appropriate remedy unless exceptions apply.
Source excerpt
The appellant failed to prove that the respondent was aware of or had agreed to performance standards, and did not serve warning letters as required by law. The procedure for termination on grounds of poor work performance was not followed, rendering the termination both substantively and procedurally unfair. The successor arbitrator gave reasons for taking over, satisfying the legal requirement. The order of reinstatement was proper under the law, with compensation as an alternative if reinstatement is impracticable.
Source excerpt
The Applicant failed to prove the misconduct charged and violated several procedural requirements in the termination process, rendering the termination unfair both substantively and procedurally. The Arbitrator was correct to order reinstatement, but the compensation period was reduced to 41 months due to the circumstances of the case.
Source excerpt
The CMA became functus officio after the settlement agreement (CMA F6) was signed, and had no jurisdiction to entertain further applications or calculate compensation. The applicant failed to provide evidence of the respondent's refusal to reinstate, and there was no proper application before the CMA. Therefore, the proceedings and resulting award were a nullity.
Source excerpt
The Respondent's termination was substantively fair due to breach of the Human Resource Policy by engaging in undisclosed private business, but was procedurally unfair as the disciplinary outcome was served outside the prescribed period. Reinstatement is not justified for procedural unfairness alone; compensation is appropriate.
Source excerpt
The High Court nullified CMA clarification proceedings, holding the notice was improperly signed and the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to revise and recalculate the award.
The High Court revised a labour award, finding the employer failed to prove fraud and that the dismissal was substantively and procedurally unfair.
The High Court upheld a CMA award reinstating a bank employee, finding her dismissal unfair because her Saturday absences were for religious worship and procedure was defective.
Explore more
