STANBIC Bank Tanzania Limited vs Anna Mtaita (Civil Application No, 202510070002226 of 2025) [2025] TZCA 1219 (21 November 2025)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DODOMA CIVIL APPLICATION NO, 202510070002226 OF 2025 STANBIC BANK TANZANIA LIM ITED ................................................APPLICANT VERSUS ANNA MTAITA ........................... .......................... ............. ....... RESPONDENT (Application for stay of execution of the decision of the High Court of Tanzania, Labour Division at Dar es Salaam) (Mrin- Deputy Registrar) dated the 24th day of October, 2025 in Execution No. 355 of 2025 RULING 21st November, 2025 RUMANYIKA, J.A.: Before me, the application is for stay of execution of the decision of the Defunct Conciliation Board of Ilala in Reference No. ILA/BLU/154/06 dated 29th November, 2007, about eighteen years ago. Note worth, it has been prompted by decision of Mrio, Registrar, in Execution No. 355 of 2025 dated 24th October, 2025. Stanbic Bank Tanzania Ltd, the applicant, seeks the Court's indulgence to grant an order of stay of execution, pending determination of an intended appeal, pursuant to rule 11(6) of the Tanzania Court of Appeal Rules, 2009 (the Rules). The Notice of Motion is by an affidavit which raises five main grounds; one, that, the applicant has lodged a Notice of Appeal against the decree which is sought to be stayed and two, that, the applicant stands to suffer substantial loss, should the intended execution not be stayed, as the amount involved is colossal which the respondent has no financial muscle to refund, in the event the intended appeal succeeds. Three, the application has been made without delay, four, if the execution is carried out now, it will render the intended appeal nugatory and five, the applicant undertakes to furnish security for the due performance of the decree, if the intended appeal fails. Briefly, the background to it goes thus; all began way back in the year 2006, when the employment contract between the parties was terminated, at the instance of the applicant. The Conciliation Board of Ilala, in its decision vide Reference No. IUV/BLU/154/06 of 29th November, 2007 found the termination to be unfair. On further reference, the respective Minister upheld the said decision, vide Reference No. KZ/U.10/RF/10509/5. Subsequently, in his decision, vide Execution No. 355 of 24th October, 2025 the Deputy Registrar of the High Court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's compensation. This was in lieu of reinstatement of the respondent which had been ordered, but the applicant chose not to take that route. At the scheduled remote hearing day, by way of video conference, parties were linked from Dodoma and Dar es Salaam. The applicant was represented by Mr. Shepo Magirari, learned counsel whilst the respondent appeared in person, unrepresented. It is worth noting that, at first, the respondent had indicated to have the services of Mr. Gilbert Daniel, learned counsel. Nonetheless, he could not enter appearance, allegedly for reasons beyond his control. On reflection, the respondent successfully sought for dispensation of the advocate's appearance. I considered this move to be notice of change of advocate, in terms of rule 32 (1) of the Rules. She proceeded on her own, as hinted above. Mr. Magirari, in arguing the application, he adopted the Notice of Motion and the founding affidavit sworn by Erick Rwelamila who introduced himself as the Head of Legal Unit of the applicant bank. Having done so, the learned counsel clarified on the five grounds raised in the Notice of Motion, as, mainly deposed in paragraphs 11, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of affidavit. As alluded to before, the respondent supported the application with reservation and conditions. She asked the applicant to deposit 50% of the decretal sum which is sought to the executed, within thirty days of the ruling of this Court, first. It is so, she argued, because her right had been held in abeyance for about twenty years, from 2006, when her 3 employment was undisputedly unfairly terminated by the applicant. Upon hearing the contending arguments from both sides, the issue is whether the applicant has demonstrated good cause for the granting of stay of execution. I have read and examined the record of application, between lines. As such, the grounds in the Notice of Motion, supported by affidavit, together with documents appended thereto, would show that, the application has met the threshold, as is substantially agreed by the respondent. As such, generally, the application is as good as the one which is uncontested. I am satisfied, that, the amount involved, TZS. 700,000,000.00 plus is colossal which the respondent will not be able to refund, in the event the intended appeal succeeds. Therefore, the applicant, most likely would suffer irreparable loss, let alone the intended appeal, being rendered nugatory. It is therefore my considered view that, the scales of justice will balance if I grant the application, as hereby done. For avoidance of doubt, therefore, execution of the decision of the High Court of Tanzania (Mrio, Deputy Registrar) in Execution No. 355 of 2025, be and is hereby stayed pending determination by the Court of the intended appeal. Meanwhile, the applicant is ordered to present a bank guarantee, equivalent of TZS. 250,000,000.00 within thirty days, with 4 effect from 24th November, 2025. Failure of which, this order shall automatically cease to operate. It is so ordered. DATED at DODOMA this 21st day of November, 2025. S. M. RUMANYIKA 1IISTICE OF APPEAL Ruling delivered virtually this 21st day of November, 2025 in the presence of Mr. Shepo Magirari, learned counsel for the applicant, the respondent in person and Mr. Shabani Kanyai, the Court Clerk, is hereby certified as a true copy of the original.