Deutsche Gesellschaft Fur Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) G M B H vs Abbas Q. Murji (Civil Application No. 0745 of 2026) [2026] TZCA 597 (20 May 2026)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DODOMA CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 0745 OF 2026 DEUTSCHE GESELLSCHAFT FUR INTERNATIONALE ZUSAMMENARBEIT (GIZ) G m bH ................................................ APPLICANT VERSUS ABBAS Q. M URJI ................................... ................................ RESPONDENT (Application for stay of execution of the judgment and decree of the High Court of Tanzania, Labour Division at Dar es Salaam) (Mganga. J .* > dated the 17th day of March, 2026 in Labour Revision No. 32983 of 2025 RULING 5th & 20th May, 2026 ISMAIL. J.A.: The applicant is currently the judgment debtor and an erstwhile employer of the respondent. In 2024, the applicant terminated the respondent's employment much to the latter's chagrin. This termination was challenged by the respondent. The Commission for Mediation and Arbitration (the CMA) adjudged the termination fair. The respondent was not amused and his next step was to challenge the CMA's decision in the High Court, Labour Division. On 17th March, 2026, the High Court reversed the decision of the CMA and, having held that the termination was unfair, i

ordered payment of compensation to the respondent, to the tune of TZS. 121,946,154.00. This decision has not been received well by the applicant, and an appeal process has begun, through the lodgement of a notice of appeal on 10thApril, 2026. The affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion informs that, the notice has allegedly been served on the respondent, and that, what awaits now is the preparation of the record of appeal and filing of a Memorandum of Appeal. It is also averred that, in the midst of the impending appeal, the respondent has commenced execution proceedings, through Execution Application No. 7996 of 2026, seeking to attach the applicant's vehicles and funds held in a bank account in execution of the decree. Pursuant thereto, a notice has been issued calling upon the applicant to show cause why an execution of the decree should not proceed. This is what has triggered the instant application. The Notice of Motion instituted by the applicant is supported by an affidavit sworn by Gwantwa Cheyo, who has identified herself as the applicant's human Resource Manager. Paragraphs 11, 12, 13 and 14 set out relevant factual account relating to irreparable loss that is likely to be suffered if the impending execution goes ahead; an undertaking to furnish security for the due performance of the decree; and the fact that the application has been preferred without any undue delay. In short, these

averments seek to demonstrate the applicant's compliance with the requirements of rule 11 of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 (the Rules). Significantly, the applicant's deposition in the affidavit in support of the Motion did not attract any opposition from the respondent who chose not to file an affidavit in reply. When the matter was called on for hearing, the applicant was represented by Mr. Norbert Mlwale, learned advocate, whilst Mr. Ceasar Kabissa, learned counsel, featured for the respondent. In his brief address, Mr. Mlwale prayed to adopt the affidavit sworn in support of the notice of motion as part of his submissions. He, subsequent thereto, did not have much to say. He reiterated the applicant's undertaking to furnish security for the due performance of the decree, stating that, the manner and style should be as the Court wishes to direct. Mr. Kabisa was not opposed to the prayer for stay of execution, insisting that, the requirements of rule 11 of the Rules had been fulfilled by the applicant. The law is settled in our jurisdiction that, an order for stay of execution of a decree pending appeal is only grantable where the conditions set out in rule 11 are met. Most specifically, institution of the application within 14 days of service of the notice of execution, as provided for under sub rule (4); demonstration that substantial loss is

likely to occur unless a stay order is made; an undertaking to furnish security for the due performance of the decree, in terms of sub-rule (5) (a) and (b) and; lastly, attachment of necessary documents as enumerated in sub-rule (7) of the Rules are what make an application proper and eligible. See also: National Housing Corporation v. A.C. Gomes (1997) Limited [2010] TZCA 168; and Jitesh Jayantilal Ladwa & Another v. Dhirajlal Walji Ladwa & 2 Others [2024] TZCA 926. I have methodically gone through the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion. What comes out is that, the applicant has done what the law requires. The filing of the application has conformed to the time frame set out by the law. It is also accompanied with all necessary documents. This makes the application eligible for its grant. As alluded to earlier on, the respondent has not expressed any opposition to its grant. Deducing from the facts, it is clear that, the applicant is likely to suffer substantial loss, in the magnitude stated in paragraph 11 of the supporting affidavit, if this application is not granted. It is my conviction, therefore, that this application has all what it takes to have it granted. It is, accordingly, granted as prayed. Next for my determination is the question of security for the due performance of the decree. As stated earlier on, an undertaking to furnish

of security for the due performance of the decree constitutes a key component in granting the application for stay of execution. It is , in fact, an eligibility criterion without which the application cannot be said to have passed the test. This position has been accentuated by this Court many a time. In Mantrac Tanzania Limited v. Raymond Costa [2011] TZCA 519, we guided as follows: "... the other condition is that the applicant for stay order must give security for the due performance o f the decree against him. To meet this condition, the law does not strictly demand that the said security must be given prior to the grant o f the stay order. To us, a firm undertaking o f the applicant to provide for security might prove sufficient to move the Court, all things being equal, to grant a stay order, provided the Court sets a reasonable limit within which the applicant should give the same." The applicant has left the decision on the nature of the security in the hands of the Court. This is, in my considered view, a realisation that, rule 11 of the Rules has left a room for the Court to exercise its discretion to determine seasonable security to be deposited in the circumstances of a particular case - see: B, R. Shindika t/a Stella Secondary School v. Kihonda Pitsa Makaroni Industries, Civil Application No. 269 of 2015 (unreported).

Having reviewed the circumstances obtaining in the instant matter, it is my firm position that, a stay order should be conditioned on the applicant's furnishing of a Bank Guarantee constituting the entirety of the decretal sum which is TZS. 121,946,154.00. The said bank guarantee should be furnished to the Court within thirty days from the date of this decision. I also order that, in the pendency of the looming appeal proceedings, nothing should be done to dissipate the value of the Bank Guarantee furnished as security. Costs of the application to be in the cause. It is so ordered. DATED at DODOMA this 20th day of May, 2026. Ruling delivered virtually this 20th day of May, 2026 in the presence of Mr. Norbert Mlwale, learned counsel for the applicant and holding brief for Mr. Ceasar Kabissa learned counsel for the respondent and Mr. Shafii Kassim Court Clerk; is hereby certified as a true copy of the original. M. K. ISMAIL JUSTICE OF APPEAL D. P. KINYWAFU DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT OF APPEAL