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 held that the applicants failed to prove an employment relationship with MMI Steel Ltd and dismissed the revision with no order as to costs.
Applicants were employed for unspecified period, not casual labour; termination for participation in strike demanding employment contracts and NSSF membership was not a valid reason as the strike was protected. Termination was both substantively and procedurally unfair as applicants were not afforded a hearing before dismissal.
Source excerpt
The arbitrator followed proper procedure in framing issues after opening statements. However, only Hamad Ally Mshana testified and proved his claim; the other respondents did not testify and thus failed to prove their claims. Only Hamad Ally Mshana is entitled to six months' salary arrears at the rate of 250,000 Tshs per month. The rest of the CMA award is quashed and set aside.
Source excerpt
The appellant, having a three-month contract as a casual labourer and no evidence of a contract term of six months or more, was not an employee eligible to claim unfair termination under section 35 of the ELRA. The existence of a written contract precluded the application of the presumption of employment under section 61 of the LIA. Length of service alone does not alter employment status from casual labourer to employee for the purposes of unfair termination claims.
Source excerpt
The High Court set aside a labour award because the trial court decided the dispute on submissions alone, without recording witness evidence as required by law.
The High Court allowed an employment appeal, holding that the trial court erred by deciding the dispute on submissions alone without taking evidence, rendering the proceedings a nullity.
The High Court dismissed an appeal over alleged salary arrears, holding the appellants were daily-paid casual labourers and not monthly employees.
The High Court held it was premature to strike out an employment dispute as summary dismissal without first hearing both parties and determining the worker’s status.
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to attach a copy of the decree to the memorandum of appeal as required by Order XXXIX rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1966, making the appeal incompetent.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that a nightwatchman was a casual employee entitled to the minimum daily wage, but not severance pay or wages in lieu of notice.
Explore more
