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
A condonation order by CMA allowing a dispute to proceed is interlocutory and does not finally determine the rights of the parties; therefore, a revision application challenging such an order is incompetent and premature under Rule 50 of Labour Court Rules, GN No. 106 of 2007.
Source excerpt
Negotiations between employer and employee while the employee is still in service constitute sufficient reason for extension of time in labour disputes; CMA failed to consider ongoing employment relationship during negotiations.
Source excerpt
The CMA lacked jurisdiction to proceed with Labour Dispute No. CMA/DSM/KIN/411/2021/51/2022 because the issue of time limitation had already been conclusively determined in a previous dispute between the same parties, and a related appeal was pending before the Court of Appeal. The proceedings and award were therefore nullified for irregularity.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed a labour revision, upholding the refusal to condone delay because the applicant failed to account for all days of delay in claiming salary arrears.
The High Court Labour Division dismissed Lake Oil Limited’s application for extension of time to file revision against a CMA award, finding no sufficient cause for delay.
The High Court upheld a ruling that Tulipo Mwereke’s breach of contract labour dispute was time barred because it was filed without condonation.
The application was filed after the expiry of the 42-day limitation period without an application for extension of time, rendering it time barred and liable to dismissal.
Source excerpt
The Court is functus officio regarding the issue of whether the application is interlocutory, as the matter was finally determined by a fellow judge in a previous proceeding involving the same parties. Therefore, the current judge must recuse himself and allow another judge to determine the application on its merits.
Source excerpt
The application was filed out of time without leave as required by Rule 10(1) of GN. No. 64/2007; ignorance of law and procedural misapprehension do not justify condonation or relief.
Source excerpt
The applicant's delay of nine days after the striking out of the first complaint was not inordinate and was reasonably explained as time spent preparing the condonation application. The principle that every day of delay must be accounted for was satisfied by the applicant's justification. Denying the applicant the right to be heard for a nine-day delay would not serve justice, especially as the dispute has never been heard on merit.
Source excerpt
Explore more
