Tanzania Education Authority vs Freddy Mbeyela (Civil Appeal No. 1398 of 2024) [2026] TZCA 462 (29 March 2026)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT PAR ES SALAAM (CORAM: NDIKA, 3.A., MURUKE. J.A. And MGEYEKWA. J.A.n CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1398 OF 2024 TANZANIA EDUCATION AUTHORITY ...................................... APPELLANT VERSUS FREDDY MBEYELA............................................................... RESPONDENT (Appeal from the Judgment and Decree of the High Court, Labour Division at Dar es salaam ) (Maqhimbi. J.^ dated the 10th day of October, 2022 in Labour Revision No 269 of 2021. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 17th & 29hApril, 2026 MURUKE JA.: The respondent, Freddy Mbelwa a retiree, was employed by the appellant on 10th March, 2004 as a Procurement Officer, a position which he served until 2007, when he was promoted to the position of Senior Procurement and Logistics Officer. In 2008, the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) performed an audit on the appellant as an institution and found that the appellant was operating without having an independent Procurement Management Unit (PMU) contrary to the requirements of the Public Procurement Act, 2004 ("the PPA"). The appellant acting on the recommendations, in 2010, i established the PMU, whereby the respondent was subsequently promoted from the position of Senior Procurement and Logistics Officer to Head of Procurement Management Unit. In 2016, the dispute arose on arrears of salary thus the respondent's complaint at the CMA in labour dispute No CMA/ DSM, ILA. 1352/17/116, against the appellant claiming payment of TZS 236,488,660.73 being underpayment of salary and other benefits. On 28th May 2021, the CMA dismissed the respondent's complaint for lack of merits. Dissatisfied the respondent filed revision No 269 of 2021 at the High Court Labour division, in which the High Court revised CMA award and ordered the respondent to be paid TZS 263, 375, 017 as net salary arrears. The High Court's decision prompted filing of the present appeal, raising six grounds of complaint, and one additional ground on the date of the hearing, challenging territorial jurisdiction of the Ilala CMA office. For reasons which will be adduced later later, we will not therefore reproduce the grounds on the main memorandum of appeal, only the additional ground that read as follows: "The CMA Ilala office did not have the requisite territorial jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's labour dispute". At the hearing of the appeal, the appellant was represented by Ms Glorian Issangya, Learned Senior State Attorney assisted by Mr. Mkama Musalama, learned State Attorney, whereas Mr. Heri Adam Zuku, learned counsel appeared for the respondent to oppose the appeal. Addressing the court on the issue of jurisdiction, the learned State Attorney submitted that CMA Ilala office lacked territorial jurisdiction to determine the dispute, in which cause of action arose from Kinondoni District, because the appellant's offices are located at Mikocheni B, Bima street as was indicated in the appellant's counter affidavit opposing the respondent's application for condonation. The territorial jurisdiction of the CMA offices are set by rule 22 (1) of the Labour Mediation and Arbitration rules G.N. 64 of 2007, that insists on dispute to be mediated at the district in which the cause of action arose. To support his argument the appellant counsel cited to us the case of Jambo Plastic Ltd vs Leonard Mhilu & Others (Civil Appeal No.349 of 2022) [ 2025] TZCA 678. The respondent's counsel in response submitted that the issue was neither raised at the CMA nor the High Court. The appellant ought to have raised it at the earliest opportunity for the CMA to decide, the 3 respondent cannot be blamed at this stage. Therefore, the CMA Ilala office had jurisdiction to deal with the respondent dispute. On being prompted by the Court as to whether the Court can take Judicial Notice that Mikocheni B, Bima street is within Kinondoni District, his reply was in the affirmatively. In rejoinder, the appellant counsel insisted that, rule 22 of G.N. 42 of 2007 is essential, because it specifically sets boundaries of the CMA offices. As the appellant's offices are located within Kinondoni District, CMA Ilala office lacked territorial jurisdiction to try the dispute. The learned State Attorney urged the Court to allow the appeal, quash the CMA proceedings and the subsequent award together with the proceedings and award of the High Court. Having heard both counsels on the issue of jurisdiction, before resolving the same we first take Judicial Notice under section 59 (1) (g) of the Evidence Act (Cap. 6 R. E. 2019) that Mikocheni 'B' Bima Street where the appellant's offices are located, is within Kindondoni District geographically. At the outset, we wish to insist that the question of jurisdiction is a threshold issue and must be determined at the threshold stage. Jurisdiction of the courts or tribunal is everything and without it, a court/tribunal has no power to make one more step. A court of law downs tools in respect of the matter before it, the moment it holds the opinion that it is without jurisdiction. Equally so it is well settled principal of law that point of law such as on jurisdiction, or time limitation, can be raised at any time even at appeal stage. This position was taken by this Court in the cases of Ransey H. Mshana vs Minister for Labour and 2 others, Civil Application No 131 of 2008 (unreported), Julias Rukambura vs Isaack Mtwa Mwakajila, Civil Appeal No 2 of 1998 ( unrepoted) and Fanuel Mantiri Ng'unda vs. Herman Mantiri Ng'unda [ 1975] LRT 155, and Tanzania Revenue Authority vs Tango Transport Company Limited, Civil Appeal No 84 of 2009 [2016] TZCA 84 the Court stated that: "a question of jurisdiction can be belatedly raised and canvassed even on appeal by the parties or the Court suo motu, as it goes to the root o f the trial". On the basis of the above cited case law, we agrees with the learned State Attorney that issue of CMA jurisdiction was properly raised before us. The issue not being raised at CMA and the High Court is immaterial as long it is the point of law which Court has to determine first even at the appellate level. The issue before us is whether CMA Ilala office had territorial jurisdiction to determine the dispute originated from Kinondoni District. The territorial jurisdiction of CMA to arbitrate and determine a labour dispute is governed by rule 22 (1) of the G.N. No 64 of 2007 which provides that: "A dispute shall be mediated or arbitrated by the commission at its office having responsibility for the area in which the cause of action arose, unless the Commissioner directs otherwise". According to the above provision, every CMA office has jurisdiction to mediate and adjudicate the labour dispute which arose within its geographical area or as otherwise directed by the commission. The rationale behind territorial jurisdiction of the CMA in Tanzania boils down to fairness, efficiency and practicality. The reasons as to why rule 22 (1) of G.N. No 64 of 2007 ties CMA cases where the dispute arose are: One; Access to justice for the parties, in that the CMA dispute resolution was created to be a quick, and cheap forum for employees to access. Filing the dispute where cause of action arose means that parties will not travel or will travel for short distance thus reduces costs and time. 6 Two; Convenience of evidence and witnesses. Labour disputes often turn on what happened at the workplace, who said what, displinary hearings attendance and other records. All that evidence if located where the employee working place is, within territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, hearing of the case locally, avoids delays and costs of transporting witnesses/document. Three; familiarity with local conditions; the CMA arbitrators in incharge of the area know the local labour market, prevailing wages, and business practices. A dispute about a mining working conditions in Geita is better understood by a Geita CMA's office, than CMA Ilala office that deals mainly with office work activities disputes resolution. Four; to prevent forum shopping. Without territorial limits parties would file the dispute where they think they will get favourable arbitrators at the expense of the weaker party. Five; Managing CMA case load; territorial jurisdiction spreads cases evenly instead of overloading on head office of the companies, this helps CMA office deliver on its mandate of expeditious disposal of disputes. Six; legal certainty. The employment and Labour Relations Act 2004, set up CMA as a decentralized body. Territorial rules gives clear guidance on which CMA office has power to hear cases, thus effective management of resources and time. Seven; CMA jurisdiction is created by statute, territorial limit are part of that statutory scheme to ensure disputes are handled by the nearest CMA office for speed and access to justice for realisation of enhanced productivity and social justice. We take note that CMA territorial jurisdiction is geared at facilitating the first objective of the Employment and Labour Relations Act No. 6 of 2004, which is to promote economic development through economic efficiency, productivity and social justice. The learned High Court Judge (Rweyemamu, J as she then was) appreciated that fact and proceeded to state the following in Dr. Noordin Jella v. Mzumbe University, Complaint No. 47 of 2008 (unreported): "For one, economic development cannot be promoted by allowing labour disputes to remain unresolved for an undue long period\ as that would keep both the employer and employee tied up in disputes instead ofbeing productively engaged .... To revert to the submission of counsel for the complainant) I stress that it is in regard to the nature o flabour disputes that time limits for initiating actions must be provided." We fully adopt that statement and add that; Tanzania Labour laws have been crafted in hybrid manner with emphasis on time 8 management from administrative process of dispute resolution to the courts of law. Territorial lines are set as a strategy towards productivity. Both insist on the crucial element for attainment of economic growth and improvement of standard of living by ushering and honouring productivity whether administratively or through the court process. Therefore, in an employment dispute, by not filing the dispute at the CMA's office with requisite territorial jurisdiction, not only is in appropriate, but delays resolving dispute that has the negative effect in Industrial Services. Therefore, the Commission and Tribunals must adhere to the principle of effective and timely resolutions of disputes to allow smooth industrial labour relations for enhanced productivity by adjudicating disputes within their jurisdictional mandate. From the foregoing, having thoroughly scrutinized the record of appeal and considered the counsel's arguments, we are satisfied that since the respondent lodged the dispute at CMA Ilala office, while the cause of action arose at Kinondoni District, obviously, CMA Ilala office lacked territorial jurisdiction to try the dispute. In the circumstances, we allow the additional ground of appeal, which has the effect of disposing this appeal. We thus allow the 9 appeal. Consequently, we nullify the CMA proceedings and those of the High Court and set aside the award. Considering the nature of the appeal, we make no order as to costs. DATED at DAR ES SALAAM this day 28th of April, 2026. G. A. M. NDIKA JUSTICE OF APPEAL Z. G. MURUKE JUSTICE OF APPEAL A. Z. MGEYEKWA JUSTICE OF APPEAL Judgment delivered this 29th day of April, 2026 in the presence of Mr. Heri Zuku, learned counsel for the Respondent also holding brief for Mr. Mukama Musalama, learned State Attorney for the Appellant and Mr. Ladislaus Msuba, Court Clerk; is hereby certified as a true copy of the original. J. E. FOVO PUTY REGISTRAR : ^ 7 / COURT OF APPEAL 10