GOSBERT EDWARD RWEYEMAMU v TANZANIA WOOD INDUSTRY CORPORATION 1992 TLR 112 (HC)

GOSBERT EDWARD RWEYEMAMU v TANZANIA WOOD INDUSTRY CORPORATION 1992 TLR 112 (HC)

Court High Court of Tanzania - Dar Es Salaam

Judge Rubama J

26 May 1992 H

Flynote

Labour Law - Jurisdiction - Whether court has jurisdiction to stay proceedings in

order to obtain labour officer's opinion whether a party is employed in the

management of the business of the employer - Proper order. I

1992 TLR p113

RUBAMA J

The plaintiff sued the defendant, his employer, for wrongful termination of A

employment. At the time of termination of services the plaintiff held the position of

general manager. A preliminary objection was raised by the defendant that by virtue

of s. 28(1) of the Security of Employment Act, 1964 the High Court had no

jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Arguments were made as to the course of action

open to the court. B

Held: In such circumstances the court should order stay of the suit leaving it open for

either party to obtain the opinion of the labour officer under s.4(e) of the Security of

Employment Act as amended by the Security of Employment (Amendment) Act, No.

C 45 of 1969.

Case Information

Order accordingly.

Mrugaruga, for plaintiff D

Mulebya, for defendant

[zJDz]Judgment

Rubama, J.: Gosbert Edward Rweyemamu is suing Tanzania Wood Industry

Corporation for wrongful termination of employment. He had been employed on two

years contract and positioned at the time of his termination as General Manager of E

Tabora Msitu Products Company Ltd. In the Written Statement of defence, Tanzania

Wood Industry Corporation raise a preliminary objection that this court has no

jurisdiction to entertain the suit as is provided by s. 28(1) of the Security of

Employment Act Cap. 574. This raised objection was argued by Mrs. Mulebya,

learned advocate F for the defendant. Mr. Mrugaruga, A Labour Officer appearing

for the plaintiff replied.

Mrs. Mulebya submitted that by virtue of s.28(1) of the Security of Employment Act

1964, this court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. She quoted several cases that

G had dealt with this question of ousting of jurisdiction: Kitundu Sisal Estate v

Shingo and Others [1976] E.A. 557, a case decided by the Eastern Africa Court of

Appeal; James Sankey v M/S Caltex Oil [1973] LRT n. 46 (Biron, J.); Walter Jager v

Cordula Ltd. t/a Tanganyika Tourist Hotels and Oyster Bay Hotel [1972] H H.C.D.

133 (Onyiuke, J.). In reply Mr. Mrugaruga referred the court to the Security

Employment (Amendment) Act, 1969 and some cases decided under it: Walter Jager v

Corbula Ltd. t/a Tanganyika Tourist Hotels and Oyster Bay Hotel (supra) and David

Kamugisha v Bukop Ltd. Civil case No. 49/90 (Mwanza Registry) I (unreported,

Sekule, J) Mr.

1992 TLR p114

Mrugaruga submitted that the trial court is not expected to dismiss the plaint as called

A upon by Mrs. Mulebya but stay the suit leaving either party seek the labour

officer's opinion on whether or not the plaintiff as in this case is in a managerial

position. Mr. Mrugaruga went on to submit that the labour officer's opinion was

obtained in the case B under consideration. I hasten to point out on this last

submission that there is no record in the case file that supports the submission.

I have gone through all the cases referred to the court except for the case of David

Kamugisha v Bukop Ltd. (supra). I could not lay my hands on this case C

notwithstanding my efforts. On these decided cases, the prayer by Mrs. Mulebya

cannot be granted. I dismiss the preliminary objection for want of merit.

Unlike as was the case in James Sankey v M/S Caltex Oil (supra) it is not that easy in

the present case to determine the question of the jurisdiction of this court to hear and

D determine the case before getting the labour officer's opinion of whether the

plaintiff was employed in the management of the defendant's business or not. If the

circumstances I go the way Onyiuke, J. went in the case of Walter Jager v Cordula

Ltd. t/a Tanganyika Tourist Hotels and Oyster Bay Hotel (supra) and order stay of the

suit E leaving it open, in the words of Onyiuke, J. in the case quoted above, at p. 136,

"for other to obtain the opinion of the labor officer under section 4(e) of the Security

of Employment Act as amended by the Security of Employment (Amendment) Act,

No. 45 of 1969."

F Order accordingly.

1992 TLR p114

G