Tulipo Mwereke vs Taifa Gas Tanzania Limited (Civil Appeal No. 369 of 2024) [2026] TZCA 547 (11 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. 369 OF 2024 TULIPO MWEREKE........................................................................APPELLANT VERSUS TAIFA GAS TANZANIA LIMITED................................................RESPONDENT (Appeal from the Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Tanzania, Labour Division, at Dar es Salaam) (Mganga, , J.) dated the 22n d day of February, 2023 in Labour Revision No. 233 of 2023 RULING OF THE COURT 7th & 11th May, 2026 FELESHI, J.A.: The appellant, Tulipo Mwereke, was aggrieved by the decision of the High Court dated 22n d February, 2024, which dismissed her revision application lodged in Labour Revision No. 233 of 2023 for want of merit. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that, prior to filing the dismissed revision application, the appellant had first sought an extension of time before the same court through Miscellaneous Labour Application No. 218 of 2023, wherein she was granted fourteen (14) days with effect from 18th September, 2023 within which to file the intended revision. Pursuant to that order, she filed Revision Application No. 233 of 2023 on 5th October, 2023. Before delving into the issue that has prompted this ruling, we find it imperative to briefly set out the factual background as gleaned from the record of appeal. The appellant was employed by Mihani Gas Company Limited, later succeeded by Taifa Gas Tanzania Limited (the respondent), under a two-year fixed-term contract commencing on 1s t March, 2016. On 23r d January, 2017, her employment was terminated on grounds of incapacity. Contending that the principles of natural justice had not been observed in the course of the termination process, the appellant instituted, on 17th February, 2017, Labour Dispute No. CMA/DSM/ILA/R. 197/17 (the first dispute) before the CMA at Ilala, alleging unfair termination and seeking reinstatement without loss of remuneration. Upon hearing both parties, the Arbitrator rendered an award holding that the termination was substantively fair but procedurally unfair. Consequently, the appellant was awarded a sum of TZS. 3,550,000/= only, being repatriation expenses from the place of employment to the place of recruitment. Dissatisfied with the award, the appellant lodged Revision Application No. 253 of 2019 before the High Court. However, on 31s t August, 2020, the revision was struck out on account of procedural irregularities. Undeterred, the appellant complied with the requisite procedures and successfully filed Revision Application No. 65 of 2022. In that application, the High Court declared the entire CMA proceedings a nullity, quashed and set aside the award on account of fatal irregularities, and ordered a trial de novo before a different arbitrator. When the matter reverted to the CMA for compliance with the High Court's order for a fresh hearing, the appellant sought leave to: firstly, amend the name of the respondent from "Mihani Gas Company Limited" to "Taifa Gas Tanzania Limited" following the company's change of name on 20th March, 2020; and secondly, alter the nature of the dispute from unfair termination to breach of contract, on the basis that her employment was governed by a fixed-term contract. By a ruling dated 3r d February, 2023, Hon. Lucia Chacha, Arbitrator, granted the prayers sought. Subsequently, on 14th February, 2023, the appellant instituted Labour Dispute No. CMA/DSM/ILA/105/2023 (the second dispute) against the respondent, alleging breach of contract and non-payment of repatriation expenses. In that dispute, she claimed a total sum of TZS. 40,000,000/=. 3 The dispute was met with a preliminary objection raised by the respondent to the effect that it was time-barred. The objection was upheld on the ground that the appellant had introduced new claims without first seeking condonation and obtaining an order extending time within which to institute the claims. Consequently, the dispute was dismissed for being time-barred. Aggrieved by that ruling, the appellant thereafter filed Miscellaneous Labour Application No. 218 of 2023, in which she was granted an extension of time of fourteen (14) days within which to lodge her revision, the period being reckoned from 18th September, 2023. As earlier stated, she subsequently filed Revision Application No. 233 of 2023 before the High Court on 5th October, 2023. However, the revision was later dismissed in its entirety for lack of merit. In the same judgment, the High Court further nullified, quashed, and set aside the proceedings and order of the CMA dated 3r d February, 2023 conducted by Hon. Lucia Chacha, Arbitrator, on the ground that there existed two contradictory orders. It is against that decision that the appellant has preferred the present appeal advancing seven grounds of appeal. However, for reasons that will shortly become apparent in this ruling, we deem it unnecessary to reproduce them herein. When the appeal came up for hearing before us, Messrs. Frank Kilian and Sosten Mbedule, learned advocates, appeared for the appellant and the respondent, respectively. Before the hearing of the appeal could proceed on the merits, we invited counsel to address the Court on the tenability of the appeal, particularly on whether Revision No. 233 of 2023 had been filed within the fourteen (14) days granted by the HighCourt reckoned from 18th September 2023. In response, Mr. Kilian initially submitted that the revision had been electronically filed within time. However, upon further reflection and in the absence of proof thereof, he candidly conceded that the revision lodged before the High Court on 5th October, 2023 had in fact been filed out of time. He accordingly urged the Court to strike it out. For his part, Mr. Mbedule entirely concurred with Mr. Kilian's position. For our part, we find that learned counsel's concession that Revision Application No. 233 of 2023 was filed outside the prescribed limitation period, together with the attendant consequence of such non- compliance, accords with the long-settled legal position that limitation periods go to the root of jurisdiction. In Raymond Obed Kitilya v. The Commissioner for Lands Ministry of Lands, Housing & Settlement & Others [2022] TZCA 560 the Court held that: 'We think that in the circumstances o f this appeal in which the issue o f limitation touches on the jurisdiction o f the Court; insisting on the compliance of the mandatory requirement of lodging an appeal within the prescribed time is in tandem with facilitating the just determination o f the matter before us in accordance with the law. The Court cannot have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal which is time barred and no extension o f time has been sought and granted "\Emphasis supplied.] In view of the foregoing position, we are of the considered view that, given the fundamental nature of jurisdiction and the duty imposed upon courts to satisfy themselves that matters brought before them fall within their lawful competence to adjudicate, the learned revisional Judge erred in entertaining and determining Revision Application No. 233 of 2023 on merit notwithstanding that the same was time-barred, having been filed seventeen (17) days after the grant of extension. Since the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter, we find that the entire proceedings therein, together with the resultant judgment, decree and orders, are a nullity. 6 In the circumstances, in exercise of our revisional powers under section 6 (2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, Chapter 141, we hereby nullify the proceedings in Revision No. 233 of 2023, quash the resultant judgment dated 22n d February, 2024, and set aside its decree together with all consequential orders arising therefrom. We make no order as to costs. DATED at MBEYA on this 9th day of May, 2026. R. K. MKUYE JUSTICE OF APPEAL E. M. FELESHI JUSTICE OF APPEAL D. J. NANGELA JUSTICE OF APPEAL Ruling delivered this 11th day of May, 2026 in the presence of M r. Frank Kilian, learned counsel for the Appellant Mr. Sosten Mbedule learned counsel, 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 7