Kitundu Sisal Estate and Others v. Shingo Mshuti and Others Court of Appeal, Civ. App. 54-D-69 (1970) Duffus, P., Law and Lutta, J. J.

Kitundu Sisal Estate and Others v. Shingo Mshuti and Others Court of Appeal, Civ. App. 54-D-69 (1970) Duffus, P., Law and Lutta, J. J.

The respondent’s employees filed a suit in the district court against the appellants’ employers claiming damages for alleged termination o service without notice. Section 28 of the security of Employment Act 1964 reads: “No suit or other Civil proceedings … shall be entertained in any civil court with regard to the summary dismissal …. Of an employee ….” The appellants urged that by reason of s. 28 the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The district court gave a ruling that s. 28 did not oust court’s jurisdiction since, it held, the respondents were not summarily dismissed. The appellants applied to the High Court for revision of the order of the district court the High Court held that the ruling giving rise to the order did not constitute a “case decided” within the meaning of s. 79 of the Civil Procedure Code, accordingly, it had no jurisdiction to revise the order, and dismissed the application. The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal.

            Held: (1) “The termination of services without notice can only be construed as summary dismissal thus ousting jurisdiction of the courts under s/ 28 pf the Security of Employment Act, 1964.” (2) “An objection to jurisdictions, tried as a preliminary issue separately from the suit, with the decision made the subject of an order, is ‘a case which has been decided’ within the meaning of s. 79 of the Civil Procedure Code and is subject to the High Court’s revisionary powers.” (3) Appeal allowed.