By FAUSTINE KAPAMA-Judiciary
THE High Court’s Labour Division has declared redundant
the application lodged by former Principal Land Officer with Shinyanga
Municipal Council Elias Augustine seeking extension of time to apply for leave
to appeal against a decision, which confirmed his termination from employment
services.
Judge Katharina Mteule reached into such a decision after
noting that the application in question was superfluous as there was no legal
requirement to seek leave to appeal against a decision of the High Court Labour
Division to the Court of Appeal.
“Thus, on the foregoing, I find the present
application superfluous. Having found no legal requirement to have this application
filed, the said application is hereby declared redundant. It is so ordered,”
the judge said.
She pointed out that appeal from the decision of the
Court is governed by the provision Section 57 of the Labour Institution Act,
No. 7 of 2004 which provides that any party to the proceedings in the Labour
Court may appeal against the decision of that Court to the Court of Appeal on a
point of law only.
The judge was of the firm position, therefore, that the
provision in question does not require the Elias Augustine, the applicant, to
file application for leave in order to appeal against the decision of the Court
to the Court of Appeal.
According to her, such provision has been
interpreted in the case of Remigious Muganga versus Barrick Bulyanhulu Gold
Mine, Civil Appeal No, 47 of 2017, Court of Appeal of Tanzania, at Mwanza
(unreported).
The appellate court held, “(…..) We are unable to
agree with him that the appellant was required to obtain leave before he lodged
the appeal. The section gives a party to the proceedings in the Labour Court
unfettered right to appeal to this Court.
“The provision does not restrict that right to the
decisions made under any specified laws. It allows a party to the proceedings
conducted in the Labour Court to appeal regardless of the law under which those
proceedings were based.
“The only restriction is that the appeal must be on
a point of law only. The section is couched in a way that it accommodates any
proceeding conducted in the Labour Court."
The judge pointed out, therefore, that in line with
the case of Remigious Muganga, which interpreted Section 57 of the Labour
Institutions Act, it was obvious that there is no legal requirement to seek
leave to appeal against a decision of the High Court Labour Division to the
Court of Appeal.
Facts show that the applicant was an employee of the
Shinyanga Municipal Council. He was originally employed on December 6, 2003 as
a Land Officer. On July 5, 2010 he was promoted to become Principal Land
Officer Glade I, before being charged with disciplinary offence by his employer.
After disciplinary
hearings, the applicant was demoted to Land Officer Grade III. Not satisfied
with the decision he appealed to the Public Service Commission and ultimately
to the Chief Secretary who acts on behalf of the President.
On appellate stage another offence was added which
triggered the termination of the Applicant's employment. Being aggrieved by the
decision of the Public Service Commission, the applicant filed an application before
the Court, requesting for an order of certiorari, mandamus and any other order.
That application was dismissed for lacking merits.
The Applicant wanted to appeal to the Court of Appeal against that decision and
was to seek for the leave of the Court to appeal but he is time barred. It was
at that point when he decided to apply for extension of time to lodge the application
for leave.
Hakuna maoni:
Chapisha Maoni