Respondents proved employment relationship and oral termination without compliance to legal procedures; applicant failed to justify lawful termination; CMA award for unlawful termination is upheld.
The respondents' termination was unlawful as the termination letters cited misconduct without evidence or disciplinary proceedings. Compensation is justified but reduced from 30 to 24 months as the original award was excessive. Repatriation costs are not payable due to lack of proof that place of recruitment and termination differed.
The defendant unlawfully terminated the contract after affirming delays and variations, refused to accept mobilization completion, and failed to pay due invoices. The defendant's conduct amounted to novation and estoppel, barring reliance on original timelines. The plaintiff is entitled to specific and general damages. The defendant's counterclaim fails for lack of contractual basis and proof.
The applicant demonstrated an arguable case for judicial review, sufficient interest in the matter, and acted promptly within the statutory time limit. The application for leave is therefore merited.
The applicant failed to provide sufficient proof of late service of the President's decision and did not account for the period of delay as required by law. The assertion of illegality cannot override the statutory requirement to file within six months. The application for extension of time is without merit and is dismissed.
The applicant satisfied the cumulative requirements for stay of execution: timely application, demonstration of potential substantial loss if stay is refused, and willingness to provide security for due performance. However, the Court found that cash security equivalent to the award amount is more appropriate than the pledged landed property. Accordingly, stay is granted on condition of depositing TZS 4,600,000 with interest as security within 30 days.
The court found that the respondent did not breach the applicant's employment contract; the termination of the applicant's position resulted from the client's (Princess Leisure (T) Limited) termination of services with the respondent, not from any unlawful act by the respondent. The evidence (exhibits G2 and G3) did not amount to termination or breach by the respondent, and the respondent acted reasonably by attempting to resolve the matter and offering alternative placement.
The High Court quashed a CMA clarification issued without hearing the parties, holding that the issue involved substantive rights over subsistence allowance.
The respondent failed to exhaust internal remedies as required by law before filing the dispute with the CMA, rendering the CMA award unlawful and premature.
The High Court allowed a labour revision, set aside a CMA award, held the parties had a fixed-term employment contract, and ordered 11 months’ salary compensation.