Patrick Sahani Ojwang' vs North Mara Gold Mine Limited (Civil Appeal No. 549 of 2023) [2026] TZCA 552 (13 May 2026)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT TABORA (CORAM: LILA, J.A., MASOUD. J.A, And MLACHA. J.A.^ CIVIL APPEAL NO. 549 OF 2023 PATRICK SAHANI OJWANG'..............................................................APPELLANT VERSUS NORTH MARA GOLD MINE LIMITED............................................. RESPONDENT (Appeal from the decision of the High Court of Tanzania, at Musoma) (Komba. J.^ dated the 13th day of June, 2023 in Labour Revision No. 09 of 2023 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 4th & 13th May, 2026 MASOUD, J.A.: The appellant was employed by the respondent as a technician on 1st October, 2011. His employment was terminated on 10th June, 2020 on ground of operational requirements. He preferred a labour dispute No. CMA/MUS/114/2021 against the respondent. The dispute was dismissed by the CMA on ground that it was time barred. Aggrieved, the appellant applied for revision of the decision of the CMA before the High Court in Labour Revision No. 05 of 2022 as per Mbagwa, J. He was granted an extension of i

time of thirty days to institute a fresh dispute at the CMA. Having filed a fresh dispute which is CMA/MAR/MUS/111/2022, an objection was raised and sustained to the effect of staying the dispute pending before the CMA pending the determination of the intended appeal. That decision was in view of the notice of appeal lodged against the decision of the High Court in Labour Revision No. 5 of 2022 which allowed the appellant to lodge his dispute at the CMA out of time. As the appellant was not satisfied with that decision of the CMA staying the dispute pending before the CMA, he unsuccessfully applied for a revision before the High Court in Labour Revision No.09 of 2023. Still aggrieved, he lodged the instant appeal in this Court against that decision of the High Court as per Komba J. He raised and argued only one ground of appeal, having abandoned the others at the hearing. The remaining ground had it that, the High Court in Labour Revision No. 09 of 2023 wrongly sustained the decision of the CMA staying the dispute pending before it whilst the decision in Labour Revision No. 05 of 2022 against which the notice of appeal was lodged by the respondent was in his view not appealable. His argument at the hearing, in which the respondent was represented by Mr. Faustin Malongo and Ms. Caroline Lucas Kivuyo, learned advocates,

was that the notice of appeal in respect of which his dispute at the CMA was stayed concerns the decision of the High Court in Labour Revision No. 5 of 2022 which is interlocutory and not appealable in terms of rule 50 of the Labour Court Rules, GN No. 106 of 2007 (the LCR). Thus, he argued, the notice of appeal is invalid and for that reason, it could not apply as a reason for the decision by the CMA staying the dispute pending before it. On the other hand, Mr. Malongo was of a different stance. He argued that, the issue whether the notice of appeal was invalid and could not, for that reason, apply as a reason of staying the dispute pending before the CMA pending determination of the intended appeal against the decision of the High Court in Labour Revision No. 05 of 2022 is not one that could be determined by the High Court or the CMA. He reasoned that neither the High Court nor the CMA has such jurisdiction. If the appellant wished to have that issue determined, he should have raised it in this Court instead of purporting to do so by seeking to revise the CMA's decision before the High Court. In the alternative, Mr. Malongo argued that, since there was nothing left before the High Court after determining Labour Revision No. 05 of 2022, the argument that that decision was interlocutory could not hold. 3

We pondered on the rival submissions relating to the ground of appeal. We noted that the appellant's grievance is on the notice of appeal lodged against the decision of the High Court in Labour Revision No. 05 of 2022 which granted him extension of time to file a fresh labour dispute before the CMA. His argument was that, since the decision of the High Court in Labour Revision No. 05 of 2022 is interlocutory and therefore not appealable in terms of rule 50 of the LCR, the notice of appeal lodged in this Court against it was invalid. To that effect, the notice of appeal, he contended, could not apply as a reason for the award by the CMA staying the dispute pending before it. We agree with Mr. Malongo that, since the notice of appeal is against the decision of the High Court in Labour Revision No. 05 of 2022 which is sought to be appealed against by the respondent, the appellant could not question its validity by way of a revision in Labour Revision No. 09 of 2023. As long as the notice of appeal is still operative and had not been withdrawn by the respondent or struck out by the Court upon being properly moved, the High Court was right in declining to revise the decision of the CMA that stayed the dispute pending determination of the intended appeal. It follows also that, the CMA properly stayed the proceedings of the dispute pending

the determination of the intended appeal against the decision of the High Court in Labour Revision No. 05 of 2022 which is a subject of the notice of appeal at issue. For the above reasons, we find the appeal wanting in merit. We dismiss it with no order as to costs. DATED at TABORA this 11th day of May, 2026. The Judgment delivered this 13th day of May, 2026 in the presence of the Appellant who appeared in person, Ms. Caroline Lucas Kivuyo, learned counsel for the Respondent by virtual Court, and Ms. Rehema Peter Makakala, Court Clerk; is hereby certified as a true copy of the original. S. A. LILA JUSTICE OF APPEAL B. S. MASOUD JUSTICE OF APPEAL L. M. MLACHA JUSTICE OF APPEAL S| COURT OF APPEAL R. W. CHAUNGU DEPUTY REGISTRAR 5