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 in Mwanza set aside a CMA award, holding that the employee’s termination was unfair substantively and procedurally and awarded compensation.
The applicant admitted to the offence of insubordination in his written defence and during the disciplinary hearing. This admission was sufficient to justify termination for misconduct. Procedural requirements for investigation, notice, hearing, and right of appeal were complied with. The applicant was paid all terminal benefits except severance pay, which is not payable upon termination for misconduct. The CMA acted properly as a court of first instance and not as an appellate body for the disciplinary committee.
Source excerpt
The High Court partly allowed a labour revision, upheld valid reasons for termination, and awarded unpaid terminal dues and certificates of service.
Termination of the applicant was substantively fair due to proven misconduct, and although procedurally unfair, the compensation of three months' salary was appropriate and within the court's discretion.
Source excerpt
Applicant failed to prove respondent's poor performance as reason for termination; performance reviews and targets were not tendered, and line manager was not called as witness. Performance standards were not shown to be reasonable or consistently applied. Applicant did not comply with procedural requirements, including investigation of reasons for poor performance and disciplinary hearing. Termination was unfair both substantively and procedurally. Award of 12 months' salary compensation was justified.
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 that the termination was due to genuine financial crisis caused by the new wage order, and did not comply with procedural requirements for retrenchment, rendering the termination both substantively and procedurally unfair. The award of 12 months’ salary compensation is justified as the statutory minimum for substantively unfair termination.
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 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
Explore more
