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
Applicant failed to prove allegations of forgery, fraud, and misappropriation against respondent to the required legal standard. Termination was unfair both substantively and procedurally due to lack of valid reasons and failure to afford respondent sufficient time and access to investigation report.
Source excerpt
There was no evidence that the applicant's oral contract was permanent. The respondent properly formalised the contract in writing after consultation, and the applicant's refusal to sign was unreasonable. Termination for gross insubordination was fair both substantively and procedurally. The applicant is not entitled to remedies under Section 40 of ELRA.
Source excerpt
The High Court upheld dismissal of a labour revision and found the bank had valid reasons and followed fair procedures in terminating the employee.
The High Court dismissed a labour revision challenge to a CMA award, upholding findings that the employee’s termination was justified and no revision basis was shown.
The High Court partly allowed a labour revision, holding that sleeping on duty by a security guard was misconduct but that dismissal was too severe for a first offence.
The High Court found valid reasons for termination but held the employer failed to follow a fair procedure, so the CMA award was quashed and reduced.
The High Court upheld the employer’s grounds for dismissal, finding misconduct and procedural compliance, and set aside most of the CMA award.
The High Court partly allowed a labour revision, finding the employee’s termination based on valid reasons but unfair because mitigating factors were not properly weighed.
The High Court dismissed a labour revision challenge to a CMA award, upholding the employee’s dismissal for gross misconduct and finding the procedure fair.
Termination was not procedurally fair as the respondent was not properly heard in the second disciplinary hearing, violating principles of natural justice and Rule 13 of the Code.
Source excerpt
Explore more
