Fidelis Msamila & Others vs Chief Executive Officer Tanzania Telecommunications Company Limited (Civil Appeal No. 478 of 2020) [2026] TZCA 550 (13 May 2026)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT MBEYA (CORAM: MKUYE. J.A., FELESHI, J.A. And NANGELA, J.A.^ CIVIL APPEAL NO. 478 OF 2020 FIDELIS MSAMILA & 283 OTHERS ........................................... APPELLANTS VERSUS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER TANZANIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY LIM ITE D ........................ RESPONDENT (Appeal from the Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Tanzania, Labour Division, at Dar es Salaam) (Aboud, 3 .) dated the 4th day of September, 2020 in Labour Revision No. 411 of 2019 RULING OF THE COURT 4th & 13th May, 2026 MKUYE, 3.A.: The appellants, Fidelis Msamila and 283 Others, Initiated a labour dispute at the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration (the CMA) against the respondent, the Chief Executive Officer of Tanzania Telecommunications Company Ltd, seeking a salary increment based on a Board of Directors' Resolution passed in 2012. The respondent raised preliminary objections that the CMA lacked jurisdiction because the dispute was hopelessly time barred. The 1 arbitrator at the CMA upheld the objection and dismissed the application. Aggrieved, the appellants filed an application for revision in the High Court, arguing that the arbitrator's ruling contained fatal errors regarding the designation of parties and that the matter should have been "struck out" for incompetence rather than being "dismissed". The High Court (Labour Division) dismissed the application for revision as it was found to lack merit. Regarding the alleged errors on the face of the record, the High Court held that the arbitrator's transposition of the parties' names was a mere anomaly rather than a fatal error, since the appellants could have sought a rectification at the CMA under section 90 of the Act. On the substantive issue of the dismissal order, the High Court ruled that while incompetent appeals are typically struck out, the specific legal remedy for a complaint or application filed out of time without a prayer for condonation is dismissal. Still aggrieved with the findings of the High Court, the appellants lodged a notice of appeal and then the appeal which is before this Court on two grounds of appeal which for a reason to be shortly apparent, we shall not reproduce them. When the appeal was called on for hearing, Mr. Mashiku Jumanne Sabasaba, learned advocate, appeared representing the appellants through Video Conference. On the other side, the respondent had the services of Mr. Bryson Peter Ngulo and Ms. Adelaida Massaua, both learned Senior State Attorneys teaming up with Ms. Frida Peter Mollel, learned State Attorney. Before the appeal could be heard in earnest, the Court wished to satisfy itself on the competence of the appeal, in particular, whether the Order of the Court dated 7th June 2023 directing the appellants to amend the notice of appeal and memorandum of appeal so as to include the names of all the appellants and bring such amended documents within sixty days of that Order by way of a supplementary record of appeal, was complied with. Mr. Sabasaba, while acknowledging that when the matter was called for the first time it was noted that the appeal did not include the names of all appellants; and that they were granted leave to amend the notice of appeal and memorandum of appeal, he contended that, they complied with the Order of the Court by filing an amended notice of appeal with 152 appellants as among the intended appellants, 106 appellants, lost interest to pursue the appeal and 26 passed away. In that situation, they removed the 106 appellants and 26 deceased 3 persons adding that out of the deceased persons, five of them had their legal representatives appointed. In this regard, Mr. Sabasaba was of the view that the Court's Order was complied with. On the other hand, Mr. Ngulo argued that the appeal is incompetent because the appellants failed to amend the notice of memorandum of appeal as were ordered by the Court. He pointed out that, the amended documents were to be brought by way of a supplementary record of appeal within 60 days of the date of the Order. He added that, as the appellants failed to comply with the Court's Order, they cannot do so as per rule 96 (8) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 (the Rules) as it prohibits the appellants to get another chance. Mr. Ngulo went on to submit that, though the appellants were directed to amend the notice of appeal and memorandum of appeal in order to incorporate all 284 appellants, the purported amendment included only 152 appellants without any Order of the Court to that effect. Also, he argued that, at pages 34 to 36 of the amended record of appeal there is a list of 106 allegedly of uninterested appellants without affidavits showing that they were no longer interested or even the Court's Order to exclude them. Again, he argued, at page 37 of the Amended Record of Appeal, there is a list of deceased appellants attached. However, he said rule 105 (1) of the Rules provides that where appellants are dead, the legal representatives are to be appointed to replace them; and in case the legal representatives are not appointed within a period of 12 months, their appeals will abate. In this case, he said, there is no Order of the Court removing them from the record. At any rate, he wondered why even their death certificates were not produced in court. For those reasons, Mr. Ngulo was of the view that, the appeal was incompetent with only one remedy of striking it out from the registry. In rejoinder, Mr. Sabasaba was insistent that the appeal was competent and that even the learned State Attorney only learnt this anomaly out of the issue raised by the Court. He, thus, urged the Court to proceed with its hearing as scheduled. Having heard the rival submissions from either side, we think, the issue for this Court's determination is whether the Order of the Court dated 7th June 2023 was complied with. In the first place, we wish to pronounce ourselves to a settled principle of law that, the Orders of the court are to be obeyed or implemented. This was reiterated in the case of CRDB Bank PLC v. Heri Microfinance Limited and Another [2024] TZCA 202 where the Court while citing the case of Olam Tanzania Limited v. Halawa Kwilabya, Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1999 (unreported) stated as follows: "... Court Orders are made in order to be implemented; they must be obeyed. I f orders made by courts are disregarded or if they are ignored, the system o fjustice will grind to a half or it will be so chaotic that everyone will decide to do only that which is conversant to them ... Courts o f law should always control proceedings, to allow such an act is to create a bad precedent and in turn invite chaos" In this case, as alluded to by both parties, it is undisputable that the appellants were granted leave to amend the notice of appeal and memorandum of appeal so as to include the omitted appellants and such amended documents were to be lodged by way of a supplementary record within 60 days of the Order. While Mr. Ngulo is of the view that the Court's Order was not complied with, Mr. Sabasaba maintains that it was complied with by bringing amended documents omitting 106 uninterested appellants and 26 appellants who passed away. Having perused the record of appeal brought by way of Amended record of appeal, which was contrary to the Order of the Court, we note that: One, the appellants amended the titles to the notice of appeal and memorandum of appeal by mentioning only 152 appellants instead of 284 which were originally intended to be appellants. 6 Two, there is a list of 106 appellants allegedly, as was well submitted by Mr. Sabasaba that, they lost interest to pursue their appeal together with another list of 26 appellants who are alleged to have passed away. Certainly, looking at the amendments made, they had gone beyond the Order of the Court. We say so because, if we may reproduce the said Order, it did not direct so. The portion of the Order states as follows:- "... Therefore, in terms o f rule 111 o f the Rules, hearing is adjourned to another convenient session o f the Court to be scheduled by the Registrar to accord the appellants time to amend the notice o f appeal and memorandum so as to include the names o f all the appellants . The appellants to File supplementary record o f appeal incorporating the amended document within sixty days o f this Order, each party to bear its own cost" [Emphasis added]. As it can be seen in the above excerpt, the Court in its Order did not direct the appellants to omit the names of the appellants for whatever reason in the notice of appeal or memorandum of appeal. Neither did it direct the appellants to append some lists of names of disinterested or dead appellants which, in any case, were appended without any Order of the Court. In our view, the appellants act of excluding/removing the names of other appellants in the amended notice of appeal and memorandum of appeal for being not interested to pursue their appeal or demised without any leave sought and granted by the Court amounted to non-compliance with the Court Order. It was expected that the appellant could have brought to the attention of the Court about the appellants who were not interested for the Court to make the necessary orders or to allow the procedure for the departed appellants to be followed. That was not done. As we have indicated before, Court's orders are to be obeyed and implemented. We ask ourselves, whether the appellant's failure to comply with the Order of the Court is fatal rendering the appeal incompetent before the Court. The answer is not farfetched. We agree with Mr. Ngulo that non-compliance with the Court Order was a fatal irregularity which rendered the appeal to be incompetent before the Court., Unfortunately, the appellants cannot, in terms of Rule 96 (8) of the Rules be given another chance to amend the documents. On this, we are also guided by our pronouncements. See: Bernard Gindo and Others v. TOL Gases Ltd, [2020] TZCA 1929 and Juma Marumbo and Others v. Regional Commissioner, Dar Es Sallam Region and 2 Others, [2021] TZCA 224. ’ The effect of an appeal which is incompetent before the Court is to strike it out. See: CRDB Bank Pic (supra) and Juma Marumbo and Others (supra). That said and done, we proceed to strike out the appeal for being incompetent. We make no order as to costs. It is so ordered. DATED at MBEYA this 12th day of May, 2026. R. K. MKUYE JUSTICE OF APPEAL E. M. FELESHI JUSTICE OF APPEAL D. J. NANGELA JUSTICE OF APPEAL Ruling delivered Virtually this 13th day of May, 2026 in the presence of Mr. Mashiku Jumanne Sabasaba, learned Counsel for the Appellants, Ms. Edina Japhet Mwamulima, learned State Attorney for the Respondent and Ms. Anna Utou, Court clerk, is hereby certified as a true copy of the original. D. P. KINYWAFU DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT OF APPEAL 9