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's fixed-term contract expired by its own terms, and there was no evidence of unfair termination, reasonable expectation of renewal, or unpaid terminal benefits. The CMA's award was correct and the application for revision lacked merit.
Source excerpt
The application is time-barred as it was filed more than six months after the accrual of cause of action, which occurred on 15 October 2021. Rule 6 of the Law Reform (Fatal Accidents and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Judicial Review Procedure and Fees) Rules, 2014, mandates dismissal of applications filed out of time. The doctrine of continuing breach does not apply; refusal to pay terminal benefits was a single act. Annexures may be considered at the preliminary objection stage.
Source excerpt
The appellant's claim for unpaid salaries from July 1985 to retirement in 2005 was not covered by the 2004 settlement deed, and the doctrine of estoppel did not apply to bar this claim. The High Court erred in awarding only 12 months' salary based on an inapplicable legal provision. The proper award was the full unpaid salary arrears as determined by the CMA.
Source excerpt
The High Court upheld a CMA award, finding an oral employment contract existed for 18 months and was terminated without valid reason, notice, or fair procedure.
Applicant consented to termination by agreement and accepted payment, barring further claims; claim for higher compensation was unproven; however, calculation errors in terminal benefits entitle applicant to additional payment.
Source excerpt
The retrenchment was substantively and procedurally fair due to economic constraints caused by the Minimum Wage Order of 2022, with adequate notice and consultation provided. However, there was no evidence that the applicant was paid the terminal benefits listed in Exhibit S-14, and the respondent is ordered to pay those amounts.
Source excerpt
The arbitrator erred by proceeding ex-parte and dismissing the application to set aside the award without properly considering the applicant's justifiable absence and relying on evidence not adduced by the parties. The applicant's notification and supporting documents constituted sufficient cause for adjournment.
Source excerpt
The arbitrator erred by proceeding ex-parte and dismissing the application to set aside the award without properly considering the applicant's notice of absence and supporting evidence. The arbitrator relied on evidence not adduced by the parties, violating procedural fairness. The ex-parte award is set aside and the matter remitted for hearing before a different arbitrator.
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
Explore more
