Chama Cha Kutetea Haki Na Maslahi Ya Walimu Tanzania (CHAKAMWATA) vs Tandahimba District Council and Others (Consolidated Misc. Labour Application No. 19968 of 2025) [2026] TZHC 2976 (5 June 2026)

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (MTWARA SUB REGISTRY) AT MTWARA CONSOLIDATED MISC. LABOUR APPLICATION NO. 19968 OF 2025, NO. 19969 OF 2025 AND NO. 22180 OF 2025 CASE REFERENCES NO. 202508121000019968, NO. 202508121000019 AND NO. 202509011000022180 BETWEEN CHAMA CHA KUTETEA HAKI NA MASLAHI YA WALIMU TANZANIA (CHAKAMWATA)……..………………………… APPLICANT AND TANDAHIMBA DISTRICT COUNCIL ....................................... 1 ST RESPONDENT NEWALA DISTRICT COUNCIL……….......................................2 ND RESPONDENT NANYUMBU DISTRICT COUNCIL …........................................3 RD RESPONDENT CHAMA CHA WALIMU TANZANIA (CWT)................................4 TH RESPONDENT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL .....................................................5 TH RESPONDENT EX-PARTE RULING. Date of Last Order: 15 th May, 2026. Date of Ruling: 05 th June, 2026. E. E. KAKOLAKI, J . This ruling determines three consolidated applications, namely Misc. Labour Application No. 19968 of 2025, Misc. Labour Application No. 19969 of 2025

2 and Misc. Labour Application No. 22180 of 2025 for condonation of delay to file statements of complaint against the respondents regarding alleged non- remittance of trade union dues deducted from salaries of its members by the respective employers and allegedly remitted to the 2 nd respondent. By an order of this Court issued on 16/04/2026 under Rule 47(1) and (2) of the Labour Court Rules, G.N No. 106 of 2007, the three applications were consolidated and the proceedings thereof ordered to be conducted in Labour Application No. 19968 of 2025, as the parties, the reliefs sought, and the causes of action were substantially similar. Respondents who were three in each application had to feature in this ruling as 1 st , 2 nd , 3 rd , 4 th and 5 th as appearing herein above. The applicant in all the consolidated applications is CHAMA CHA KUTETEA HAKI NA MASLAHI YA WALIMU TANZANIA (CHAKAMWATA), a registered trade union, while the respondents are various district councils sued as first respondents in the respective matters, now 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd respondents after consolidation, the CHAMA CHA WALIMU TANZANIA (CWT) as the second respondent, and the ATTORNEY GENERAL as the third respondent, now 4 th and 5 th respondents respectively.

3 The applications before this Court have been preferred by way of chamber summons under Rule 56(1), (2) and (3), Rule 24 and Rule 28 of the Labour Court Rules, G.N No. 106 of 2007, as well as sections 91 and 94 of the Employment and Labour Relations Act, [Cap. 366 R.E. 2023], supported by affidavits duly sworn by the principal officers of the applicant. The major prayer sought by her is the extension of time to institute statements of complaint against the respondents regarding the alleged non-remittance of trade union dues deducted from the salaries of the applicant’s members. The applicant’s gravamen, as garnered from the affidavits, is that, from the year 2020, the first respondents stopped remitting trade union dues deducted from the salaries of the applicant’s members and instead remitted the same to the 4 th respondent. It is further deponed that the applicant was prevented from taking legal steps in time due to a series of legal and administrative events relating to deregistration and cancellation proceedings instituted against it by the Registrar of Organisations, culminating in Civil Appeal No. 170 of 2023 before the Court of Appeal of Tanzania, which was decided in favour of the applicant on 27 th February, 2025. The applications are opposed by the respondents who filed the notices of opposition and counter-affidavits to that effect through their respective

4 principal officers. The respondents generally contended that the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for delay and that the intended complaints were premature for failure to comply with the mandatory dispute settlement procedures under section 65 of the Employment and Labour Relations Act, Cap. [366 R.E. 2023]. The 1 st , 2 nd , 3 rd and 5 th respondents raised a preliminary objection on point of law to the effect that the applications were untenable for being prematurely preferred for failure to comply with section 65(1 ), (2), (3), (4) and (5) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act, [Cap 366 R.E. 2023] hence this Court lacking jurisdiction to determine them. On 16/04/2026, when the applications came for mention the applicant had the service of Mr Jasseda Erasto, who held a brief for Mr Luka Ngongo, both are learned advocates while the 1 st , 2 nd , 3 rd and 5 th respondents had the services of Mr Maroa Wambura, the learned state attorney and the 4 th respondent sourced the services of Mr Rainery Songea, the learned advocate and parties were ordered to argue the raised preliminary objection by way of written submission and schedule for filing them set by the Court. It was ordered that the 1 st , 2 nd , 3 rd and 5 th respondents should file submissions in chief on or before 30/04/2026, the applicant and the 2 nd respondent file reply

5 submissions on or before 07/05/2026 and rejoinder submissions on or before 14/05/2026. The matter was therefore set for mention on 15/05/2026 with a view to fixing a ruling date. However, on 15/05/2026 when the matter came for mention with a view of establishing compliance of the Court’s orders by the parties for filing of submissions and setting the ruling date only the 1 st , 2 nd , 3 rd and 5 th respondents appeared through Mr Maroa Wambura, the learned State Attorney and the 4 th respondent who had the services of Mr Rainery Songea, the learned advocate, as the appellant defaulted appearance without any notice. The Court was thus informed on that day by Mr Maroa Wambura, the learned state attorney, that the applicant did not wish to file any reply thereto, who subsequently advanced a prayer for ex- parte ruling following the applicant’s failure to comply with the Court’s order to file the reply submissions without notice, the prayer which the 4 th respondent conceded to. It was his considered argument that the applicant's failure to file submissions in compliance with the Court’s order amounted to failure to prosecute or defend one’s case. In support of that position, he cited the case of Godfrey Kimbe vs Peter Ngonyani (Civil Appeal No. 41 of 2014) [2017] TZCA 1 (25 July 2017), wherein the Court of Appeal held that

6 failure to lodge written submissions after being ordered by the Court is tantamount to failure to prosecute or defend the case. Upon hearing the submissions by the learned State Attorney and noting the position taken by the learned counsel for the 4 th respondent, conceding to the prayer advanced by the 1 st and 3 rd respondents, and further considering the absence of the applicant without notice, as well as her failure to comply with the Court’s order regarding the filing of reply submissions. It is trite law that court orders are made to be implemented and must therefore be obeyed unless vacated by the court issuing them or displaced by a superior court. If orders made by courts are disregarded or ignored, the system of justice will grind to a halt, or it will become so chaotic that everyone will decide to do only what they are conversant with or pleased to do. See the case of Kmj Telecommunications Limited vs Airtel Tanzania Limited (Misc. Commercial Cause 384 of 2017) [2021] TZHCComD 3275 (3 August 2021) and Shabani Amuri Sudi(administrator of the Estates of the Late Amuri Sudi ) vs Kazumari Hamisi Mpala (Misc. Land Application 30 of 2019) [2020] TZHC 4114 (10 November 2020). Any violation or disobedience to court orders by the party is punishable at law, as any degree of tolerance amounts to a voluntary invitation to judicial chaos, disrespect and injustice.

7 In this matter, appellant’s act of not filing her reply submissions as prescribed by the Court is a violation of court orders, and I hold it is tantamount to failure to enter an appearance before the Court on the date scheduled for hearing to defend herself against the preliminary objection raised by the 1 st , 2 nd , 3 rd and 5 th respondent, hence an ex parte ruling against her. In support of the preliminary objections raised, Mr Wambura, for the 1 st , 2 nd , 3 rd and 5 th respondents, submitted that the dispute intended to be instituted by the applicant concerns enforcement of trade union rights and remittance of trade union dues, matters which are specifically governed by Part V of the Employment and Labour Relations Act. He explained that sections 65 and 66 of the Employment and Labour Relations Act establish a mandatory procedure requiring all trade union disputes to be referred to the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration (CMA) for mediation and issuance of a certificate of failure to mediate before approaching this Court. He said the applications were therefore untenable and premature for failure to comply with section 65(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act, [Cap. 366 R.E. 2023], thereby depriving this Court of jurisdiction to entertain them. He argued in the supporting affidavits that the applicant pleaded or demonstrated nowhere that the disputes were ever

8 referred to CMA, mediated or accompanied by certificates of non-settlement. According to him, where the law provides for a specific dispute resolution mechanism, parties are bound to exhaust such mechanism before resorting to the courts of law. To bolster his arguments, he referred the Court to its decision in the case of Tanzania Social Service Workers Union (Tasiwu) vs Chui Security Co. Ltd (Labour Application of 2016) [2022] TZHC 13128 (23 September 2022), where the Court emphasised the need for parties in labour disputes to first undertake bona fide attempts to resolve disputes amicably before instituting proceedings before the Court. The learned State Attorney also cited the decision in Aloyce Janese Kasawa v William Mafungo Mwangwa and Others , Civil Reference No. 5 of 2018 [2021] TZCA 610, wherein the Court of Appeal observed that before a matter is determined on merits, it must first be ascertained that the proceedings giving rise to it are competently before the Court because any decision arising from null proceedings equally becomes a nullity. The learned Atate Attorney further cited the case of Chama Cha Kutetea Haki Na Maslahi Ya Walimu Tanzania (CHAKAMWATA) vs Dar Es Salaam City Council and Others (Labour Application No. 19712 of 2025) [2025] TZHCLD 160 (17 October 2025), contending that this Court had previously

9 held that disputes relating to remittance of trade union dues ought first to be referred to CMA under sections 65 and 66 of the Employment and Labour Relations Act. Mr Wambura further relied on the decision in Chama Cha Kutetea Haki Na Maslahi Ya Walimu Tanzania vs Uyui District Council and Others (Labour Application No. 20030 of 2025) [2026] TZHC 1459 (26 March 2026), where the Court considered the effect of sections 65(1)–(5) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act, [Cap. 366 R.E. 2023] in relation to disputes concerning remittance of trade union dues. In that matter, the Court held that failure by a trade union to first refer the dispute to the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration rendered the application premature and incompetent. In that regard, he beseeched the Court to sustain the preliminary objection and submitted that the applications were premature and incompetent for want of compliance with the mandatory procedures under sections 65 of the Employment and Labour Relations Act, [Cap. 366 R.E. 2023]. I have carefully considered the applications, affidavits, notices of opposition, counter-affidavits and submissions by the 1 st and 3 rd respondents. The preliminary objection raised by the respondents challenges the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the applications as being premature. It is settled

10 law that jurisdiction is a prime issue which must be determined at the earliest opportunity because once a court lacks jurisdiction, it has no power to proceed further. In the celebrated case of Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lilians” v. Caltex Oil (Kenya) Limited [1989] KLR.19, cited with approval in the case of Barrick Gold Mine Limited vs Augustino Nestory Sasi (Civil Appeal No. 710 of 2025) [2026] TZCA 489 (4 May 2026), where it was held that: “Jurisdiction is everything and that, without it, a court has no power to make one more step” Moreover, in the above-cited case, it was held that: “Where the court takes upon itself to exercise a jurisdiction which it does not possess, its decision amounts to nothing.” The intended disputes in the present applications, if these applications are granted, concern alleged unlawful deduction and remittance of trade union dues and violation of organisational rights of a trade union. Such disputes squarely fall within the ambit of trade union disputes regulated under Part V of the Employment and Labour Relations Act. Section 65 of the Employment and Labour Relations Act, [Cap. 366 R.E. 2023] (the ELRA) lays down the procedure to be followed by a registered trade union seeking to exercise

11 organisational rights conferred under Part V of the Act. Under subsection (1), the trade union is enjoined to notify the employer in the prescribed form. Subsections (2), (3) and (4) of section 65 of the ELRA further require the parties to attempt resolution of the dispute through engagement and mediation before the dispute is referred to the Labour Court. The said provision of section (1), (2), (3) and (4) of section 65 of the ELRA provides: 65.–(1) A registered trade union may notify an employer in the prescribed form that it seeks to exercise a right conferred under this Part. (2) Within 30 days of the receipt of a notice under subsection (1), the employer shall meet with the trade union to conclude a collective agreement granting the right and regulating the manner in which the right is to be exercised. (3) Where there is no agreement or the employer fails to meet with the trade union within 30 days, the union may refer the dispute to the Commission for mediation. (4) Where the mediation fails to resolve the dispute, the trade union may refer the dispute to the Labour Court, which shall make appropriate orders. The wording of the above provisions, though using the term ‘may’ in the interpretation of this Court, imposes a mandatory requirement as the law requires parties to first exhaust the statutory dispute settlement mechanism

12 before approaching the Labour Court. This Court in Tanzania Electricity Supply Company Limited Vs Mariam Mtoro Khalfan , Lab. Div., DSM, Rev. No. 51 of 2010, 08/07/2009, [2011-2012] LCCD 1, held that the application is improperly lodged before the Court as the applicant did not exhaust all the available remedies with the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration. In the present matter, as correctly submitted by Mr Wambura, the submission which I endorse, the applicant pleaded nowhere in the affidavits in support of the applications that the dispute was referred to CMA. There is equally no indication or evidence to the effect that mediation was conducted and/or a certificate of non-settlement issued. Instead, the applicant has directly approached this Court seeking condonation of delay to institute the intended complaints founded on disputes which the law requires to be processed first through CMA in terms of section 65(3) and (4) of the ELRA. This Court also in the case of Chama Cha Kutetea Haki Na Maslahi Ya Walimu Tanzania vs Uyui District Council and Others (supra), reiterated its position that failure to first refer the dispute to CMA renders applications of that nature premature and incompetent, as section 65 of the ELRA establishes a mandatory dispute resolution mechanism requiring a

13 registered trade union, where no agreement is reached with the employer, to refer the dispute to CMA before approaching the Labour Court. Assume for the sake of argument that these applications are granted, certainly the applicant would be obstructed from proceeding further with her intention to file statements of complaint against the respondents regarding the alleged non-remittance of trade union dues deducted from salaries of its members by the respective employers and allegedly remitted to the 2 nd respondent, for want of evidence to establish her compliance with the provisions of section 65(3) and (4) of the ELRA. It would be of no use, therefore, for this Court to entertain the matter with full knowledge that it would not further the applicant’s intended cause of action. In the circumstances, I find that the present consolidated applications were prematurely preferred before this Court. Moreover, in consideration of sections 65 and 66 of the Employment and Labour Relations Act, this Court finds that section 66 is inapplicable to the present applications as it concerns circumstances where an employer alleges material breach of organisational rights by a trade union and seeks intervention after mediation, which the present applications do not intend to address. The issue before the Court concerns whether the applicant complied with the procedure stipulated

14 under section 65(3) and (4) of the ELRA to entitle her to approach this Court for condonation of delay to file statements of complaint against the respondents regarding alleged non-remittance of trade union dues deducted from salaries of its members by the respective employers and allegedly remitted to the 2 nd respondent. To that extent, authorities and submissions founded on section 66 are distinguishable based on the facts of the present matter. As elucidated above, I find merit in the preliminary objection raised by the 1 st , 2 nd , 3 rd and 5 th respondents as the intended disputes emanate from trade union rights and remittance of trade union dues, matters which ought to have first been referred to the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration in accordance with section 65(3) and (4) of the ELRA before coming to this Court. Since the applicant failed to comply with the mandatory statutory procedures before approaching this Court, the applications are premature and incompetent, and thus cannot be entertained by the Court. In the end, the preliminary objection raised by the 1 st , 2 nd , 3 rd and 5 th respondents succeeds, as consolidated Misc. Labour Application No. 19968 of 2025, Misc. Labour Application No. 19969 of 2025 and Misc. Labour

15 Application No. 22180 of 2025 are hereby struck out for being prematurely instituted before this Court. Considering the nature of the dispute and the circumstances of the matter, I make no order as to costs. It is so ordered. Dated at Mtwara, this 05 th day of June, 2026. E. E. KAKOLAKI JUGDE 05/06/2026. Court: The Ruling has been delivered at Mtwara today on the 05 th day of June, 2026, through video conference in the presence of Mr Maroa Wambura, State Attorney for the 1 st , 2 nd ,3 rd and 5 th Respondents, Mr Alex Msalenge, for the 2 nd Respondent and Ms Asha Mboga, Court clerk and in the absence of the applicant. Right of appeal explained. E. E. KAKOLAKI JUGDE 5/06/2026.