Bank of Tanzania vs Adrian Leonard Kaozya (HC Labour Revision 96 of 2019) [2020] TZHC 845 (21 April 2020)

Key Facts

Issues

• The court examined if the employer's reason for termination (theft as a form of dishonesty) was valid and serious enough to justify dismissal, considering the relevant legal provisions and precedents. It concluded that the charge of dishonesty, which includes theft, was properly aligned with the termination reason and that the offense was sufficiently serious to warrant dismissal.
• The court assessed whether the employer adhered to the fair procedure outlined in Rule 13 of the Code of Good Practice, including proper investigation and disciplinary processes. It found that the employer conducted an investigation, provided the respondent with mitigation opportunities, and followed the disciplinary committee's procedures, thereby satisfying procedural fairness requirements.

Holdings

• The court found the CMA arbitrator's conclusion that the charge and termination reason were different offences to be incorrect. It clarified that theft is included within the definition of dishonesty under Rule 12(3)(a) of GN.42 of 2007, validating the employer's disciplinary process and the termination decision.
• The court determined that the respondent's termination was both substantively and procedurally fair. It revised and quashed the CMA award which had ruled the termination unfair, finding that the employer followed proper procedures under Rule 13 of GN.42 of 2007 and that the charge of dishonesty justified termination. The court emphasized that theft falls under gross dishonesty, aligning the charge with the termination reason.

Remedies

• The court made no order as to costs, noting that this is a labour matter.
• The court quashed the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration (CMA) award and allowed the revision application, determining that the respondent's termination was both substantively and procedurally fair. The court revised the decision to uphold the termination.

Legal Principles

• The court emphasized that an employer must prove the termination of employment was based on a valid and fair reason, in accordance with procedural fairness. This includes demonstrating that the employee's conduct (e.g., dishonesty) was sufficiently serious to justify termination and that the disciplinary process adhered to established legal and procedural standards.
• The court clarified that theft is categorized under 'gross dishonesty' as per the Bank of Tanzania's disciplinary procedures and the Employment and Labour Relations Act (GN 42 of 2007). This principle ensures that specific misconduct, even if not explicitly named in legal codes, falls under broader ethical and procedural violations justifying termination.

Precedent Name

• Sharifa Ahamed v Tanzania Road Haulage (T) 1980 Ltd
• Richard Mwanasasu v Toyota Tanzania Limited
• Coca Cola Kwanza Ltd v Enmmanuel Mollel

Cited Statute

• Labour Court Rules, 2007
• Employment Labour Relations Act (Code of Good Practice), GN No.42 of 2008
• Employment and Labour Relations Act, 2004
• Employment and Labour Relations Act, No.6 of 2004
• Employment and Labour Relation (Code of Good Practice), GN.42 of 2007
• Employment Labour Relations Act (Code of Good Practice), GN No.42 of 2007
• International Labour Organization Convention 158 of 1982

Judge Name

Passage Text

• The applicant employer to prove the offence which the respondent was found guilty with and challenged the same in the Commission had called two witnesses who intended to prove that the respondent was fairly terminated.
• The reason shall not only be one of the kinds of reasons considered fair but the reason in a particular case shall be sufficiently serious to justify termination.
• I find that the respondent termination of employment was both substantively and procedurally fair. Therefore, I revise and quash the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration decision which held that there were no valid reasons to terminate the respondent.