Exim Bank Tanzania Limited vs David Mumbii (Civil Appeal No. 551 of 2024) [2026] TZCA 323 (19 March 2026)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT PAR ES SALAAM rCORAM: MWARIJA. 3.A.. KENTE. J.A, And MGONYA. J.A.^ CIVIL APPEAL NO. 551 OF 2024 EXIM BANK TANZANIA LIMITED ............. ................................ APPELLANT VERSUS DAVID MUMBII...................................................................... RESPONDENT (Appeal from the Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Tanzania, Labour Division at Dar es Salaam) fRwizile. J.^ dated 1st day of July, 2022 in Labour Revision No. 218 of 2021 RULING OF THE COURT 1s t December, 2025 & 19th March, 2026 MWARIJA. J.A.: The respondent, David Mumbii was an employee of the appellant, Exim Bank Tanzania Limited. He was employed on 26/1/2009 in the position of a Teller. On 7/1/2012 he was terminated from employment on the allegation of gross misconduct, that he participated in fraudulent transaction of his employer's money (TZS 10,700,000.00) to the account of a person known as Crespo at the appellant's branch, Zanzibar. He was terminated after the appellant's disciplinary committee had found him guilty of participating in dubious transactions thus causing loss to it. i The respondent was dissatisfied with the termination and therefore, complained before the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration, Dar es Salaam (the CMA), vide Inquiry No. CMA/DSM/ILA/R. 63/13/139. He denied the allegation that he participated in dubious act with the person to whose account was used to receive the dubiously transferred money. Having heard the dispute, the CMA found that the respondent was wrongly terminated because the allegation was not proved. It found also that his termination was procedurally unfair. It thus ordered his reinstatement. The appellant was aggrieved by the award of the CMA and as a result, applied for revision before the High Court of Tanzania, Labour Division, Revision No. 445 of 2016. The award was quashed with an order that the dispute be filed afresh and be heard before a different Arbitrator. The respondent filed a fresh dispute, CMA/DSM/ILA/R. 727/18. The hearing proceeded ex-parte on account that, the appellant's advocate failed to appear on two consecutive dates, 25/7/2018 and 25/8/2018. Acting on the evidence of the respondent, the CMA found that the respondent's termination was substantially and procedurally unfair. It consequently ordered reinstatement of the respondent and payment of the arears of his salary from 9/1/2013 when he stopped being paid to 31/1/2019, a period of 72 months. 2 The appellant unsuccessfully applied to set aside the ex-parte award. Later on, the respondent filed an application for execution. That application was struck out by the Deputy Registrar of the High Court, Labour Division on account that, the award contained arithmetical errors (it read TZS 75 billion instead of 75 million). That compelled the respondent to apply for a corrected award. The same was corrected on 29/4/2021 after the CMA had overruled the preliminary objection that the application to that effect was time barred. While the case was at the execution stage, the appellant applied for revision before the High Court, Labour Division in Revision No. 218 of 2021. The High Court (Rwizile, J.), dismissed the application on 1/7/2022 on the ground that the same was filed out of time. He found that, the limitation period of six weeks under section 91 (1) (a) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act No. 6 of 2004, ought to have been reckoned from the date when the decision in the application to set aside the award was made in 2019 and not after ratification of the award which was made in the execution proceedings on 29/4/2021. The appellant has now appealed against that decision, raising the following ground of appeal: 3 "The learned Labour Court Judge erred in law and fact by holding that the Application for Revision No. 218 o f 2021: Exinn Bank (T) Limited v. David Mumbii was time barred while in fact ; it was lodged within time." At the hearing of the appeal, the appellant was represented by Dr. Onesmo Kyauke, learned counsel while the respondent was represented by Mr. Michael Nyambo, also learned counsel. The learned counsel for the respondent had, on 27/11/2025, raised a preliminary objection on the same issue that, to a certain extent, dominated the proceedings in both the CMA and the High Court, the issue of limitation. He contended as follows: "The appeal is time barred for contravening [rules] 90 (1), (3) and 91 (a) o f the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 as amended" Submitting on the preliminary objection, Mr. Nyambo argued that, since the letter applying for copies of proceedings was lodged on 11/7/2022 and the appellant was notified on 19/11/2022 that the copies were ready for collection, the appeal, which was filed on 29/7/2024 is time barred. In response, Dr. Kyauke opposed the argument that the appeal was filed out of the prescribed time. He submitted that, although 4 it is true that the appellant was informed on 19/7/2022 that the copies were ready for collection, the appellant was not availed a complete set of the requisite documents. He submitted further that, it was after several reminders to the Registrar of the High Court (the Registrar) that the missing documents were supplied and the Registrar issued a certificate of delay excluding the period spent in preparing and supplying a complete set of the proceedings. It is indeed apparent from the record at pages 241, 243, 245, 247, 248, 250 and 252 that, between 6/9/2022 and 29/4/2024, the appellant's advocates kept on writing to the Registrar reminding him of the request to be supplied with the missing documents which according to the letter dated 22/12/2022, appearing at page 243 of the record of appeal, are: (j) a copy o f the CMA proceedings, (ii) certified copies of exhibits and (iii) any other documents necessary or forming part o f the record. It was not until on 7/6/2024 that by his letter Ref. No. AB. 47/71/01/198, the Registrar supplied the requested documents - a "copy of proceedings and certified exhibits of the CMA in Labour Revision No. 5 218 of 2021." On the same date, a certificate of delay was issued which excluded the period from 11/7/2022 when the appellant requested for a copy of proceedings and 7/6/2024 when the missing documents were supplied to the appellant. On the basis of the foregoing, by filing the appeal on 29/7/2024, the appellant did so within the prescribed time of 60 days under rule 90 (1) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009. The preliminary objection is therefore, devoid of merit and is hereby overruled. DATED at DODOMA this 18th day of March, 2026. A. G. MWARIJA JUSTICE OF APPEAL P. M. KENTE JUSTICE OF APPEAL L. E. MGONYA JUSTICE OF APPEAL The Ruling delivered this 19th day of March, 2026 in the presence of Ms. Hamisa Nkya, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Michael Nyambo, learned counsel for the respondent connected vide video facility from Dar es Salaam and Mr. Soud Omar, Court Clerk, is hereby certified as a true copy of the original. D. R. LYIMO DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT OF APPEAL 6