Frady Tajiri Chawe & Others vs Tanesco (Civil Application No. 26/01 of 2024) [2026] TZCA 343 (26 March 2026)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT PAR ES SALAAM ( CORAM: MWARIJA, J.A.. MASHAKA, 3.A. And ISSA. J.A.^ CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 26/01 OF 2024 FRADYTAJIRI CHAWE (As Administrator of the Estate of the Late DONATUS CHAWE SANGA) & 433 OTHERS ............... APPLICANT VERSUS TANESCO ........ . ........................ . ......................................... RESPONDENT (Application for Review of the Ruling and Orders from the Court of Appeal at Dar es Salaam) fMwandambo. Issa & Ismail, JJA.) dated the 23r d day of November, 2023 in Civil Reference No. 02 of 2023 RULING OF THE COURT 13th October & 26th March, 2026 MASHAKA, J.A.: The applicants filed the application under rule 66 (1) (a) (b) and (e) and (2) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 (the Rules) seeking the indulgence of the Court to review its own decision in Civil Reference No. 02 of 2023 (Mwandambo, Issa and Ismail, JJ. A) on the ground of manifest error apparent on the face of the record. The application is supported by an affidavit averred by Peter Kibatala, the learned advocate for the applicants. i On the part of the respondent, she resisted the application by filing affidavit in reply deposed by Narindwa Sekimanga, the learned State Attorney. Briefly, this case originates from a labour dispute involving 434 former employees of TANESCO who were retrenched in 2003. The retrenched employees successfully challenged the termination of their employment in Trade Dispute No. 81 of 2006 at the Industrial Court which found the retrenchment unlawful and ordered the respondent to reinstate the employees or pay them 18 months' salary as compensation. Dissatisfied, the applicants and the respondent filed revision against the Industrial Court's decision. The High Court, in Consolidated Revision No. 78A of 2008, made a ruling that the respondent had valid reasons for the retrenchment but failed to follow the proper procedure. Consequently, it significantly reduced the compensation award from 18 months to 3 months salary for most of the applicants. The applicants were aggrieved with the decision and filed Notice of Appeal on 22n d February, 2016. However, they had initially mistakenly applied for an extension of time to appeal in Civil Application No. 500/18 of 2017 instead of obtaining a certificate of delay from the Registrar, which would have officially excluded the time taken to prepare the court record from their appeal timeline. The application was withdrawn on 6th November 2018. The applicants then pursued for a certificate of delay from the Registrar, which was finally issued on 31s t July 2019. By this time, the statutory period for filing an appeal had long expired. The applicants filed Civil Application No. 505/18 of 2019 which was before a single Justice of Appeal (Mwampashi, JA) seeking for extension of time to file their appeal. The application was dismissed. The single Justice held that while the delay up to 31s t July 2019 to obtain the certificate of delay was excusable as a technical delay, the applicants had failed to satisfactorily account for the subsequent four-months delay from 31s t July to 25th November 2019 when they filed the extension application. Still undaunted, the applicants lodged Reference No. 02 of 2023 before the Court challenging the decision of the single Justice. The Court (Mwandambo, Issa, and Ismail, JJ.A.) dismissed the application for Reference. It upheld the finding of the single Justice that the applicants had not adequately explained the four-months delay and confirmed that the issues which had been raised concerning joinder of a legal representative for a deceased applicant and alleged illegalities in the High Court decision were found not relevant to the core issue of the unexplained delay. 3 Now, the applicants have lodged the present application seeking for review of the decision of this Court on the ground of manifest error on the face of the record resulting in a miscarriage of justice as follows: - 1. Summarily dismissing the relevance o f the joinder o f a iegai representative without assigning any reason. 2. Incorrectly holding that the construction o f a prior court order (Mugasha, JA) for the Certificate o f Delay was irrelevant That the applicants could not pursue for extension o f time without exhausting the available remedies for collection of certificate o f delay dated 31st July 2019. 3. Wholesale dismissal of the alleged illegalities in the decision without analysis on how it reached such findings. 4. Basing its decision on the finding that the applicants'advocate sat around for 2 months without contacting the Registrar, without having heard the parties on that specific point, allegedly violating the Audi Alteram Partem rule. It is settled that, an application for review is not an avenue for a second appeal. It is an exceptional remedy available on very narrow grounds, such as the discovery of new and important evidence, a manifest error on the face of the record, or a fundamental breach of natural justice pursuant to rule 66 (1) of the Rules. See for instance, Simon Kichele Chacha v. Aveline M. Kilawe (Civil Application No. 135/28 of 2021) [2023] TZCA 17819 (10 November 2023). In this instant application, the applicants are essentially attempting to re-argue the same points that were already considered and rejected by the single Justice and the Court. The fundamental reason for the dismissal of the previous applications was the failure by the applicants to account for the four months delay. The ruling of the Court provided a detailed justification as to why the applicants' explanation was insufficient, emphasizing the legal requirement to account for each day of delay and the need for corroborating evidence like an affidavit from the Registrar when making specific claims about follow-ups at the Registry. On the assessment of the alleged manifest error, it was the finding of the Court that the process of joining a legal representative for one of the 444 applicants could not have been the cause of the four-months delay in filing the application for an extension of time, thus, that was not a manifest error. The Court further, distinguished between grounds of appeal which are arguments on merit and a pure illegality that would warrant an extension of 5 time. It concluded that the applicants' complaints were the former, which was a finding within its discretion and not a manifest error. While the applicants claim they were not heard on the specific point of sitting around for two months to contact the Registrar, the record shows that their advocate addressed the Court at page 13 of the ruling of the Court on the contents of his affidavit, which was the very evidence the Court found insufficient. A court is entitled to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence presented to it. From the analysis above, the application for review fails to demonstrate a manifest error on the face of the record that would justify the exceptional remedy of review. The Court decision was primarily based on the applicants' failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for a significant and unexplained delay, a finding that was well-reasoned and grounded in established legal principles. The other grounds raised were correctly deemed irrelevant to the central issue. Now, the applicants are trying to persuade the Court to sit on appeal of its own decision which is against the spirit of rule 66 (1) of the Rules which is a mere disagreement with the decision or one of the parties in the case conceived himself to be aggrieved by the Court's decision which 6 we find is not a ground of review. (See, Dativa Nanga v. Jibu Group Company Limited & Another (Civil Application No. 381/02 of 2023) [2023] TZCA 17805 (8 November 2023). In fine, we find the application to be wanting in merit and we accordingly dismiss it. DATED at DODOMA this 19th day of March, 2026. A. G. MWARIJA JUSTICE OF APPEAL L. L. MASHAKA JUSTICE OF APPEAL A. A.ISSA JUSTICE OF APPEAL Ruling delivered this 26th day of March, 2026 via video link in the presence of Mr. Ayoub Gervas Sanga, learned Senior State Attorney for the Respondent also holding brief for Mr. Peter Kibatala, learned counsel for the Applicant and Mr. Shafii Kassim, Court clerk, is hereby certified as a true copy of the original. D. R. LYIMO DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT OF APPEAL 7