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 set aside a CMA award after holding that the arbitrator went beyond the pleadings by determining suspension, not termination, issues.
The claims in the two disputes were different: the first concerned unpaid salaries during suspension, the second concerned termination and terminal benefits. Res judicata does not apply as the causes of action were not the same and could not have been litigated together.
Source excerpt
The High Court revised a CMA award, holding that a fairly terminated public servant was not entitled to withheld half salary after conviction.
The High Court dismissed a labour revision seeking salary after suspension, holding that the applicant’s fixed-term contract ended before any further salary was due.
The High Court held that the applicants were terminated, not merely suspended or absentee employees, and that the termination was substantively and procedurally unfair.
The applicant was validly terminated for abscondment as he failed to report or communicate during suspension despite reasonable efforts by the employer; procedural lapses in not holding an ex-parte hearing did not invalidate the termination due to the applicant's waiver of rights and exceptional circumstances. The employer's actions in suspension and termination were substantively and procedurally fair.
Source excerpt
The Committee had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as an allegation of misconduct under Section 13(1)(c) of the Advocates Act, and formal application or affidavit was not mandatory. The appellant was properly served and given opportunity to defend but failed to do so. The Committee's order for refund of Tshs.25,000,000 exceeded its statutory powers and was quashed. The one-year suspension was within the Committee's discretion and not excessive.
Source excerpt
The Committee had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as an allegation of misconduct under S.13(1)(c) Advocates Act, and formal application or affidavit was not mandatory. The appellant was properly served and given opportunity to defend but failed to do so. The Committee lacked power to order refund of Tshs.25,000,000 as it was not a cost or witness expense. The suspension imposed was within the Committee's discretion and not excessive.
Source excerpt
Explore more
