John M. Manawa & Others vs Consolidated Tourist and Hotel Investment Ltd & Another (Civil Appeal No. 528 of 2024) [2026] TZCA 612 (1 June 2026)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA fCORAM: FIKIRINI. J.A. RUMANYIKA, J.A, And ISSA. J.A/) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 528 OF 2024 JOHN M. MANAWA MOSSES J. NASSARY TUMSIFU J. THUMAN LILIAN B. MCHUO MARTINA S. OMBAY ANTHOTY E, SALIA ELIZABETH S. JORROJICK SHADRACK L. MOLLEL SAMORA S, MATAY JULIUS S. MOLLLEL ROSE L. WILLIAM JACOB A. BALLOHHO PASCAL W. MOLLEL JUMMANNE M. NYAMOHEGE EMMY KIMARO GODSON L. MOLLE AMRY A. MZEE GILIAD J. MBISE ERASTO S. MOLLEL MAGRETH L. MOLLEL HALIMA L. RAMADHANI PAULINA P. MKWEMBA AMINA A. IMMAN MONICA C. MAFFA FELISTA M. WILBERD OMBEN J. MBISE ALOYCE J. ILAKWAH BERNADETHA J. MRUMA ABDALLAH M. IDRIS A VIDES L. SHOO NELSON G. LUKUN ROSE 0. MBISE ASNATH Z. MAFIE ABBDALLAH R. HANUNA PIUS P. MASSAWE JUMMANNE J. MWANDU HOSIANA E. MATLE EMMANUEL J. URUO

AISHA S. KULU EMMANUEL L. AKYOO JAMESONG G. MOLLEL PHACKSIDO P. MASSAWE OMBENI S. SEVEKO JULIUS G. BOSHE LEAH J. SHIO NEEMA A. KITOMARY LICIAN M. KIRWAY EBENEZER D. MUNGURE OBADIA W. NNKO SAFINA M. MATLEY MAGRET N. MOLLEL LICIAN M, QAMARA MAGRETH H. MFINANGA JOHN N. KVUYO LOTH E. MWANJEMA TUFA R. LAIZER AGNESS D. NNKO JOYCE S. NNKO....................... FRANK L. LAIZER HANIFA M. MBUGUNI GOOLUCK S. MOLLEL NAFTALI T. LAIZER OMBENI A. KITOMARY OSCAR N. MKILANYA JOHSON S. KITALU EMMANUEL M. MALEKU MARKO E. DUWE LIDYA A. MASSAY ALFED NGUA MAONESHO MESHACK L. MOLLEL YUSUPH N. NANGURE DORA MASATU ALLY R. MANDI FATUMA MOHAMED KITUNDA WILFRED WILLIAM HADSON R. MNYANKALI NEEMA M. KIPUYO QAMARA MORATA GLORY SIMON KAAYA GODLISTEN B. MBISE JOSHUA O. SUMARI WILFRED MELIYO LUKUMAY

VERSUS ►RESPONDENTS CONSOLIDATED TOURIST AND HOTEL INVESTMENT LIMITED ELEWANA AFRIKA (T) LIMITED ..................................... MORU HOLDING LIMITED CHODAWU (Appeal from the Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Tanzania, at Arusha) (Kiwonde, 3.1 dated the 24th day of May, 2024 in Labour Revision No. 36 of 2023 RULING OF THE COURT 11th May & 1st June, 2026 FIKIRINI. J.A.: The first, second and third respondents (the respondents) are prominent operators of lodges and hotels in Arusha, whose business activities are heavily reliant on international tourism. Their operations were significantly disrupted in early 2020 when the COVID-19 pandemic led to border closures, suspension of flights, and a near-total halt in tourist arrivals. Faced with unprecedented financial strain, the respondents sought to manage the crisis through consultations with employee representatives. 3

The appellants, employed in various capacities across these establishments, were members of the Conservation, Hotels, Domestic and Allied Workers Union (CHODAWU), the fourth respondent. Under Section 67 of the Employment and Labour Relations Act (the ELRA), CHODAWU acted as their exclusive bargaining agent, and the employment relationship was governed by a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Between April and May 2020, the respondents engaged CHODAWU and a Joint Committee of employee leaders in multiple consultative meetings. These discussions culminated in an agreement (Exhibit PI) under which employees unable to work would receive a subsistence allowance of TZS 150,000.00 per month in place of their normal salaries. However, as the pandemic persisted, the respondents concluded that retrenchment had become unavoidable. On 26th October, 2020, they issued a formal Notice of Intention to Retrench, triggering further consultations under Section 38 of the ELRA. From October 2020 to May 2021, meetings addressed retrenchment reasons, mitigation measures, selection criteria, and severance terms, though consensus was not reached on severance pay.

The matter was referred to the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration (the CMA) in Labour Dispute No. CMA/ARS/03/21/37/21. In its Award of 29th July, 2021, the CMA found that the first - third respondents had valid operational reasons to retrench, authorized the process, and directed payment of statutory terminal benefits. Retrenchment letters were subsequently issued on 31s t January, 2022. Despite this, the appellants lodged a fresh complaint in 2022 registered as Labour Dispute No. CMA/ARS/80/2022/38/2022, seeking salary arrears, challenging the fairness of the retrenchment, and demanding additional benefits. On 16th June, 2023, the CMA dismissed the claims, ruling that the salary arrears demand was time-barred and that the retrenchment was substantively justified and procedurally fair. The appellants then sought revision before the High Court of Tanzania, Labour Division, at Arusha in Labour Revision No. 36 of 2023. In its judgment of 24th May, 2024, the High Court upheld the CMA's findings, confirming that the arrears claim was out of time, that consultation through CHODAWU satisfied statutory requirements, and

that the validity of retrenchment had already been conclusively determined in the unchallenged 2021 Award. Undeterred, the appellants have now appealed to the Court, advancing three grounds of appeal, which we shall not reproduce for the reason that in course of our perusal of the record we noted some anomalies which need be addressed first. Those anomalies can be summarized as follows: one, change of lead appellant, two, introduction of new parties, three, uncertainty in party's identity and four, inconsistency between decree and judgment. We invited Messrs. Lengai S. Loitha, Elvaison Maro and David Kahwa, all learned advocates who appeared for the appellants and respondents respectively, to address us on the pointed out glitches. In his brief submission, Mr. Loitha conceded to the anomaly and offered an explanation. He stated that Noel Claud Mboya was indeed a party to the proceedings but had lost interest in pursuing the appeal, hence his name was dropped and replaced with that of John M. Manawa. In the same breath, counsel informed the Court of the passing of Joyce Kirundwa, one of the appellants, whose family was not interested in

following up on the matter, leading to her name being removed as well. When asked why the number of appellants remained 83 despite the removal of two names, counsel explained that two other individuals, Joshua Sumari and Wilfred Meliyo Lukumay, were joined as appellants after unopposed leave was sought and granted by the High Court. Counsel further argued that the discrepancy between the number of appellants in the judgment and the decree should be treated as a mere slip of the pen. He urged the Court to prioritize substantive justice over technicalities, invoking section 89(4)(b) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act (ELRA) and section 4(2)(a) and (b) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009. On the respondents' part, Mr. Maro contended that the issue was not minor. He emphasized that neither the respondents nor the Court were aware of the stage at which Noel Claud Mboya was dropped, as no proceedings reflected such withdrawal. He referred to the case of Jenga Said and 258 Others v. Blanket Manufacturer and 2 Others [2023] TZCA 17452, where the Court stressed that parties must remain

consistent from the CMA up to the Court of Appeal, as it ought to have been in this case. In reference to the above decision, Mr. Maro submitted that removing Mboya's name without leave of the Court was fatal. He further noted that even after his removal, the number of appellants inexplicably remained 83, raising further doubts. Upon consideration, the Court observed that the proceedings before the CMA indicated the dispute was filed in the name of Noel Claud Mboya and 82 others. Yet, in the pleadings before the High Court, Mboya's name was absent, and the matter was presented as between John Manawa and 82 others. If Mboya had indeed withdrawn, the natural consequence would have been a reduction in the number of parties. Retaining "82 others" alongside a different lead applicant suggested that the composition of parties had been altered without due process, a practice impermissible under the principles emphasized in Jenga Said and 258 Others (supra). This irregularity raised serious doubts about the identity and locus standi of the parties before the Court. 8

Counsel for the appellants attempted to justify the discrepancy by explaining that Mboya lost interest and Kirundwa passed away, while Sumari and Lukumay were added. However, upon close examination, the respective supplementary affidavit only concerned Sumari, who was already listed among the CMA complainants. His inclusion merely regularized his participation. Lukumay, however, was not part of the CMA list, and no record demonstrated his involvement in the original dispute. Without a formal order of joinder or amendment, his introduction at the High Court stage constituted a serious procedural irregularity. Also, the variance in number of applicants in the judgment and that in the decree needs to be rectified. As John M. Manawa and 82 applicants is not the same as John M. Manawa and 80 applicants. As we have stated in Jenga Said and 258 Others, (supra) the record has to be consistent through out and if there are any changes, reasons for the same should be on record. 9

In light of the anomalies, the Court concludes that the appeal is incompetent. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby struck out with no order as to costs, it being a labour matter. DATED at DODOMA this 1s t June, 2026. P. S. FIKIRINI JUSTICE OF APPEAL S. M. RUMANYIKA JUSTICE OF APPEAL A. A. ISSA JUSTICE OF APPEAL The Ruling delivered this 1s t day of June, 2026 via Teleconference, in the presence of Mr. Lengai Loitha, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. David Kahwa, learned counsel for the respondents and Mr. Nelson Novati, Court Clerk; is hereby certified as a true copy of the original. ' J. J. KAMALA DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT OF APPEAL 10