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 upheld a CMA award dismissing a labour revision over alleged psychological injury after non-renewal of employment, finding no proved causal link or legitimate expectation.
The employment contract expired automatically after the agreed period, with no evidence of mutual agreement to renew or legitimate expectation. The arbitrator erred by raising and deciding on new issues without hearing the parties and awarding reinstatement and compensation contrary to law.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal of Tanzania dismissed an employee’s appeal, holding that fixed-term contract non-renewal was not unfair where clear notice and structural changes defeated any reasonable expectation of renewal.
The High Court held that the parties’ contract was a consultancy agreement, not employment, and quashed the CMA award for unfair termination.
The High Court upheld dismissal of a labour revision, holding that a fixed-term contract ended automatically on expiry and no reasonable expectation of renewal was proved.
The High Court held the workers were on specific-task contracts that expired automatically, so unfair termination provisions did not apply and the award was quashed.
The High Court dismissed a revision application over a fixed-term employment contract, finding the contract expired by non-renewal and no breach or legitimate expectation was proven.
There was no legitimate expectation for renewal of the fixed term contract as no authorized representation was proven; the contract expired automatically and compensation for 12 months was erroneously awarded. Delay in issuing the award did not occasion injustice and does not invalidate proceedings.
Source excerpt
The respondent's conduct and correspondence created legitimate expectation for renewal of the employment contract; failure to renew constituted unfair termination under Rule 4(4) and section 36(iii), entitling appellant to compensation for remaining contract period and other statutory benefits.
Source excerpt
The High Court erred in finding valid reason for termination; evidence relied upon was unsubstantiated and hearsay. Both substantive and procedural unfairness were established, entitling the appellant to 12 months' remuneration and terminal benefits. The BG Long-Term Investment Plan was not due and not contractually guaranteed, so appellant not entitled to it.
Source excerpt
Explore more
