Automated Summary
Key Facts
Danford Evans Omari was employed by Tazama Pipeline Limited from 15 September 1996 until 27 November 2018. He applied for condonation to file a labor dispute out of time at the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration (CMA), but his application was refused due to insufficient cause. Omari's condonation request was filed 68 days after the deadline expired, and the court found no evidence to justify the delay. The applicant alleged the mediator erred in law and created a corruption-prone environment by delaying the ruling, but the court dismissed the revision application as frivolous and vexatious, awarding costs to the respondent.
Issues
- The applicant alleged the mediator delayed the ex parte ruling to foster corruption. The court dismissed this as baseless, emphasizing that such claims require evidence and must be directed to the appropriate anti-corruption authority.
- The court concluded the applicant's failure to provide specific reasons for delay and his shifting of blame to the respondent made the application frivolous and vexatious, warranting a costs award to the respondent under Labour Institutions Act and CMA regulations.
- The applicant challenged the mediator's ex parte decision, arguing it ignored evidence and legal information. The court found the ruling based on the applicant's own affidavits and oral submissions, rejecting the claim that facts were not properly considered.
- The court determined whether Danford Evans Omari demonstrated sufficient cause for the 68-day delay in filing his dispute at the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration (CMA), including whether he accounted for each day of delay as required by law. The applicant cited respondent's delayed responses to his appeal and terminal benefits request as reasons, but the court found his affidavits lacked specific explanations for the delay and ruled the application frivolous/vexatious.
Holdings
In the up short revision application dismissed for lack of sufficient cause, with costs, for being frivolous and or vexatious and abuse of court process.
Remedies
- The revision application was dismissed because the applicant failed to show sufficient cause for the delay in filing the dispute. The court found the application to be frivolous and vexatious.
- The court awarded costs to the respondent due to the applicant's frivolous and vexatious application, which was deemed an abuse of the court process.
Legal Principles
- The court applied the principle that costs are only awarded in labour disputes where proceedings are frivolous or vexatious, citing Section 50(6) of the Labour Institutions Act and Rule 51 of GN 106/2007. This aligns with the decision in Tanzania Breweries Limited Vs. Nancy Maronie, where costs were granted upon withdrawal of a notice of appeal due to frivolous conduct.
- The court emphasized the legal requirement for applicants seeking condonation of delay to account for each day of the delay, referencing cases like Interchick Company Limited Vs. Mwaitende Ahobokile and Vodacom Foundation Vs. Commissioner General (TRA). The applicant's failure to do so was deemed insufficient to justify the extension.
Precedent Name
- Vodacom Foundation Vs. Commissioner General (TRA)
- Dar es Salaam City Council Vs. S. Group Security Co. Ltd
- Tanga Cement Co. Ltd and Leah Mchome
- Interchick Company Limited Vs. Mwaitende Ahobokile
- Alysony Peter Gulman Vs. A to Z Textile Mills Ltd
- Tanzania Breweries Limited Vs. Nancy Maronie
- Stanbic Bank Tanzania Limited Vs. Bryson Mushi
- Alexander Chacha Vs. Tanzanite One Ltd
- Blue Financial Services Vs. Vestina Masaga
Cited Statute
- GN 64/2007
- Labour Institutions Act No. 7 of 2004
- Employment and Labour Relations Act No. 6 of 2004
- GN 42/2007
- Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendment) Act No. 3 of 2010
- GN 106/2007
Judge Name
Z. G. Muruke
Passage Text
- The manner in which applicant conducted himself in terms of affidavit in support for condonation at CMA and also affidavit in support of revision, before this court, demonstrate negligence. There was no reasons at all, let alone sufficient reasons. Thus present application is frivolous and or vexatious and more so it is abuse of court process that necessitate costs to be awarded to the respondent.
- In an extension of time, each day count and has to be counted for, as clearly enunciated by in the Court of Appeal decision in Civil application number 234 of 2015... applicant has to account for every day of the delay.
- Applicant delay to file dispute at CMA cannot act as automatic emergency on the part of the mediator/arbitrator and respondent... whoever claims any rights before CMA or court of law, has to file claims within time otherwise will be blamed for his delay.