Leah D. Kagine vs The Registered Trustees of Bugando Medical Center (Appeal No. 327 of 2021) [2023] TZCA 18042 (14 December 2023)

LEAH D. KAGINE VS THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF BUGANDO MEDICAL CENTER COURT OF APPEAL TANZANIA (CORAM: NDIKA, J.A., MDEMU, J. A., ISSA, J.A. ) APPEAL NO. 327 OF 2021 (Appeal from the Ruling and Order of the High Court of Tanzania at Mwanza dated the 19th day of December 2018 in Labour Revision No. 109 of 2017 ) Employment law – concurrent contracts of employment – effect of a fixed - term contract on a pre - existing indefinite term contract – parol evidence rule in contractual disputes. In this case, the appellant, who had been employed by Bugando Medical Centre on a permanent basis, was later appointed under a fixed - term contract to a higher role; upon its expiration and her compensated exit, she claimed her earlier contract remained val id and sought reinstatement. The CMA agreed and ordered reinstatement, but the High Court reversed this, holding the initial contract was implicitly terminated by the new one and the matter was already settled, invoking res judicata. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s claim that her earlier permanent and pensionable employment contract survived or revived after the expiry of a later fixed - term contract. The appellant contended that the initial contract was never formally terminated and thus remained valid. The Court disagreed, reasoning that once the fixed - term contract took effect, the earlier unspecified - term contract was automatically terminated. It em phasized that both positions were full - time and could not legally or practically operate concurrently. Moreover, there was no written evidence —

required under section 14(2) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act — that the first contract was intended to revive. The Court also rejected the appellant’s reliance on an alleged oral agreement to reinstate her, applying the parol evidence rule under sections 100 and 101 of the Evidence Act, which bars oral evidence from contradicting or supplementing written contractua l terms, absent specific exceptions. Held: (i) The court held that the fixed - term contract automatically terminated the initial permanent and pensionable contract because concurrent full - time roles were impractical, and there was no evidence of an agreement to suspend the initial contract temporarily. (ii) The purported oral agreement to revert to the initial contract was inadmissible under the parol evidence rule, as any alteration to a written contract's terms must also be in written form according to Tanzanian employment law. (iii) The claim of res judicata was upheld by the High Court, as the settlement and payment to the appellant resolved any disputes under the fixed - term contract, concluding their employment relationship. Having found no concurrent contracts and no binding reinstatement agreement, the Court found no merit in the claim and upheld the High Court’s decision that the appellant’s case was also barred by res judicata, having already been settled. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. Statutory Provisions referred to: ( i) Civil Procedure Code [Cap. 33 R.E. 2002] (ii) Section 14(1)(a) , Section 14(2) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act [Cap. 366 R.E. 2019] (iii) Section 100(1) , Section 101 (including proviso (a) to (f)) of the Evidence Act [Cap. 6 R.E. 2022]

Case s referred to: (i) Khalidi Mlyuka v. Republic , Criminal Appeal No. 442 of 2019 [2021] TZCA 539 (ii) Othman R. Ntarru v. Baraza Kuu la Waislamu Tanzania (BAKWATA) , Labour Revision No. 323 of 2013 (High Court, unreported) (iii) Surrey County Council v. Lewis [1987] IRLR 509 (House of Lords)