Rashidi Hamadi Maniki & Others vs Shirika La Usafirishaji Dar Es Salaam Limited (Civil Appeal No. 354 of 2022) [2026] TZCA 456 (29 April 2026)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT PAR ES SALAAM fCORAM: NPIKA. J.A., MURUKE J.A., And MGEYEKWA, J.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 354 OF 2022 RASHIDI HAMADI MANIKI .................................................... 1 st APPELLANT OMARY MOHAMED MZIRAY................................................... 2 nd APPELLANT MUHKISIN S. SELEMANI........................................................3 rd APPELLANT STRATON ALEXANDER........................................................... 4™ APPELLANT FRANK ALEXANDER KILAWE..................................................5™ APPELLANT CHARLES A. SHABANI............................................................6™ APPELLANT STANLEY ALFRED MJEMA......................................................7™ APPELLANT NHOGOTA NATANIEL BALADIGA............................................ 8™ APPELLANT VERSUS SHIRIKA LA USAFIRISHAJI DAR ES SALAAM LIMITED ............... RESPONDENT (Appeal from the Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Tanzania, Labour Division at Dar es Salaam) (Mqgnqg, J.) Dated the 22n d day of April, 2022 in Labour Revision No. 292 of 2021 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 22* & 29th April, 2026 MGEYEKWA. J.A. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Tanzania (Labour Division) at Dar es Salaam, delivered by Mganga, J. in Labour Revision No. 292 of 2021 on 22n d April, 2021. Before we consider the merits of the appeal, we find it necessary to briefly outline the background facts as borne out by the record of appeal: The appellants were employed by the respondent under fixed- term contracts. On 11th August, 2017, the respondent terminated their contracts. Aggrieved by that termination, the appellants lodged a complaint, being CMA/DSM/TEM/557/2017/230/2017, before the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration (the CMA), wherein they alleged breach of contract on the part of the respondent. The matter proceeded ex parte against the respondent. Upon a careful evaluation of the evidence on record, the Arbitrator concluded that the respondent was in breach of the contracts of employment. On that basis, he proceeded to award the appellants the salaries they would have earned for the unexpired term of their contracts. Consequently, a sum of TZS 66,914,944/= was awarded as unpaid salaries. Dissatisfied with the ex parte award, the respondent lodged Revision Application No. 543 of 2019 before the High Court. That application was struck out on the basis that the respondent had not first sought to set aside the ex parte award before the CMA. In the wake of that development, and being out of time to move the CMA to set aside the award, the respondent lodged an application for extension of time in CMA/DSM/TEM/Misc. Application No. 75 of 2021. On 29th June, 2021, Nyang'uye, H, Arbitrator, dismissed the application on the ground that no sufficient cause had been shown to justify the delay. Still dissatisfied, the respondent lodged Labour Revision No. 292 of 2021 before the High Court, impugning the Arbitrator's refusal to grant extension of time. Upon hearing the parties, the High Court proceeded to nullify the proceedings before the CMA and quashed all orders emanating therefrom. Aggrieved by the decision, the appellant has preferred this appeal, raising four grounds of appeal. However, in view of the manner in which the appeal has been argued before us, we find it unnecessary to set them out in extenso. At the hearing, the appellants were represented by Mr. Rashidi Juma Kasisiko, learned counsel. The respondent was represented by Mr. Pauline Mdendemi, learned Principal State Attorney, assisted by Messrs. Ayoub Sanga, Urso Luoga and Nestory Lutambi, all learned State Attorneys. The appellants filed written submissions on 30th September, 2022, which were duly adopted by learned counsel during the hearing. Before the hearing could proceed, Ms. Mdendemi, learned Principal State Attorney, informed the Court that the respondent had conceded to the second ground of appeal. That ground challenged the High Court for revising the CMA decision in Labour Dispute No. CMA/DSM/TEM/557/230/2017, which was not before it, instead of confining itself to the revision arising from CMA/DSM/TEM/Misc. Application No. 75 of 2021, relating to an application for extension of time. Elaborating on the concession, learned counsel submitted that the High Court fell into error by delving into the merits of the substantive dispute, whereas the matter before it was strictly limited to an application for extension of time. She accordingly urged this Court to intervene, allow the appeal, and restore the order granting extension of time as made by the learned Judge. In support of her submissions, she cited the case of Joseph Mushi & Another v. TPB Bank, Civil Appeal No. 86 of 2022 [2024] TZCA 1174. In response, Mr. Kasoiko, learned counsel for the appellants, adopted his written submissions and maintained that Labour Revision No. 292 of 2021 was confined strictly to the issue of extension of time arising from CMA/DSM/TEM/Misc. Application No. 75 of 2021. He faulted the High Court for misdirecting itself by purporting to revise proceedings which were not before it, a course which, in his view, was untenable in law. As to the way forward, learned counsel for the appellant was at variance with the stand taken by learned counsel for the respondent. He distinguished the authority of Joseph Mushi & Another v. TPB Bank (supra), relied upon by the learned Principal State Attorney, and contended that the factual and legal circumstances therein were materially different from those obtaining in the present matter. In conclusion, he urged this Court to allow the appeal and remit the matter to the High Court for proper determination of the application for extension of time. We have carefully considered the record of appeal, the submissions of learned counsel, and in particular, the concession made by the learned Principal State Attorney on the second ground of appeal. The issue falling for our determination is a narrow one, namely, whether the High Court, in the exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction, confined itself to the matter properly placed before it. The record leaves no room for doubt. Labour Revision No. 292 of 2021 emanated from CMA/DSM/TEM/Misc. Application No. 75 of 2021, which related to an application for extension of time to set aside an ex parte award. It is evident that the respondent, in moving the High Court, raised, inter alia, a ground of illegality as a basis for seeking extension of time. However, in addressing that ground, the learned Judge misdirected himself. Instead of limiting himself to the inquiry whether the alleged illegality was apparent on the face of the record to justify the grant or refusal of extension of time, the learned Judge embarked upon an extensive examination of the ex parte award in Labour Dispute No. CMA/DSM/TEM/557/2017/230/2017 and proceeded to determine issues touching on jurisdiction. In so doing, the learned Judge went beyond the remit of the application before him. The question before the High Court was confined to the validity of the application for extension of time, namely, whether sufficient cause had been shown to warrant the exercise of discretion in favour of the applicant. It did not call for a determination of the merits or legality of the ex parte award sought to be impugned. By delving into those matters, the learned Judge prematurely determined issues that were not properly before him. The consequence of that misdirection is apparent. The learned Judge proceeded to nullify the entire proceedings before the CMA and quash all orders arising therefrom. In our considered view, that course of action amounted to a clear transgression of the limits of the Court's revisionary jurisdiction, as it effectively determined a matter that had not been placed before it for adjudication. Accordingly, we are satisfied that the High Court travelled beyond the scope of the matter before it and thereby fell into error. In view of the express concession by the learned Principal State Attorney, which we find to have been properly made, we have no hesitation in holding that the second ground of appeal is meritorious. We have also considered the reliance placed on Joseph Mushi & Another v. TPB Bank (supra). With respect, that authority is clearly distinguishable. In that case, the High Court was properly seized of the application before it but erred by proceeding further to determine the matter on its merits. In the present case, however, the error is more fundamental. The learned Judge, while purporting to determine an application for extension of time, went astray and determined a different matter which was not before him. The two situations are therefore not comparable. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that this is a proper case for this Court to interfere with the decision of the High Court. In the result, we allow the appeal, quash the decision of the High Court in Labour Revision No. 292 of 2021, and remit the matter to the High Court before another judge for proper determination of the application for extension of time in accordance with the law. It is so ordered. DATED at DAR ES SALAAM this 28th day of April, 2026. G. A. M. NDIKA JUSTICE OF APPEAL Z. G. MURUKE JUSTICE OF APPEAL A. Z. MGEYEKWA JUSTICE OF APPEAL Judgement delivered this 29th day of April, 2026 in the presence of Mr. Rashid Juma Kasisiko, learned counsel for the appellants, also holding brief for Mr. Mkama Musalama, learned State Attorney for the respondent and Mr.