Jesca T Esha vs Madalins Ventures (Labour Revision No. 24554 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 8483 (19 December 2025)

The Judiciary of Tanzania IN THE HIGH COURT OF UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA LABOUR REVISION NO. 24554 OF 2025 JESCA T ES H A ........................................................................................ APPLICANT Versus MADALINS VENTURES .................................................................. RESPONDENT (Arising from the decision of the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration) (Hon. MASAWE. R, ARBITRATOR) Dated on 26th , August 2025. in CMA/ARS/ARS/177/2025 JUDGMENT 18th & 19th December 2025. F.H. MAHIMBALI, J. The Applicant has moved this Court to revise and set aside the ruling of the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration (CMA) in Labour Dispute No. CMA/ARS/ARS/177/2025 delivered on 26th August 2025. The application is supported by the Applicant's affidavit and opposed by the Respondent through a counter-affidavit and written submissions. The background of the matter can be put in this way. The Applicant was employed under a fixed-term contract dated 1st July 2024 as Administrator and Data Entry Staff. On 28th February 2025, her employment was terminated. She referred the matter to the CMA in 1

Labour Dispute No. CMA/ARS/ARB/75/25/70/2025, which was struck out for incompetence. Being out of time, she filed Labour Dispute No. CMA/ARS/ARS/177/2025 seeking condonation for late referral. The CMA dismissed the application, holding that she had failed to demonstrate sufficient cause. Aggrieved, she now seeks revision before this Court challenging the CMA's ruling on two grounds:

1. That the CMA erred in holding she had not accounted for each day of delay.
2. That the CMA failed to properly evaluate annexure J-5, which showed she received the ruling on 21st July 2025, thereby leading to an erroneous decision. For the Applicant's submissions, Counsel argued that the delay was technical, not negligent. Ninety-three (93) days were spent prosecuting the struck-out dispute, and twenty-four (24) days were spent following up the ruling and preparing the condonation application. Annexure J-5 demonstrated diligence. Authorities cited include Lyamuya Construction Company Ltd v. Board of Registered Trustee of 2

Young Women's Christian Association of Tanzania (Civil Application No. 2 of 2010) [2011] TZCA 513 (3 October 2011) and ZET Construction Company Limited vs. Kalokora Bwesha & Cecilia Boniface Shiyo (Civil Application No. 314/01 of 2022) [2024] TZCA 197 (19 March 2024), Joseph Kawongo Mtemi vs. The Aga Khan Education Service, Tanzania (Misc. Labour Application No. 5719 of 2025) [2025] TZHCLD 113 (28 May 2025). For the Respondent, it was submitted that the Applicant failed to account for each day of delay, particularly the 24 days after the ruling was delivered. No evidence was produced of follow-up at CMA. Reliance was placed on Yazid Kassim Mbakileki vs. CRDB 1966 Ltd Bukoba Branch and Jackem Auction Mart and Court Brokers Limited (Civil Application No. 412/04 of 2018) [2018] TZCA 359 (6 September 2018), Wilson Ntembeje Machumu vs Bodi ya Wadhamini ya Mfuko wa Pensheni kwa Watumishi wa Umma (PSPF) (Revision No. 4 of 2018) [2018] TZHCLD 29 (20 April 2018) among others. Having digested the grounds for the revisions and submissions thereof, the central issue now is whether the Applicant demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant condonation for late referral of the dispute. 3

Rule 31 of the Labour Institutions (Mediation and Arbitration) Rules, GN No. 64 of 2007, empowers the CMA to condone delay upon good cause. The principle is settled: each day of delay must be accounted for ( J.A in Regional Manager, TANROADS Kagera v. Ruaha Concrete Company Limited (Civil Application No. 96 of 2007) [2007] TZCA 372 (19 December 2007; TanzLII)). In this case, the Applicant delayed for a total of 117 days. While the 93 days spent prosecuting the struck-out dispute may be treated as technical delay, the remaining 24 days required strict accounting. The Applicant's assertion that she was awaiting notification from CMA staff is unsupported by cogent evidence. Annexure J-5 only shows receipt of the ruling on 21st July 2025, not active follow-up or presence when the ruling was delivered on 1st July 2025. Bare assertions, without corroboration, cannot constitute sufficient cause. Negligence and inaction are not excusable grounds for condonation ( Alison Xerox Sila vs. Tanzania Harbours Authority (Misc Civil Reference No. 14 of 1998) [2000] TZCA 67 (5 July 2000; TanzLII)). The authorities cited by the Applicant are distinguishable, as they dealt with pure technical delay with absent negligence to the part of the applicant unlike to the instant application. 4

On this analysis, it is my holding that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for condonation. The CMA was correct in dismissing the application. I thus find this application unmerited and it is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The ruling of the CMA in Labour Dispute No. CMA/ARS/ARS/177/2025 is upheld . It is so ordered. Dated at Arusha this 19th day of December, 2025. F.H. Mahimbali Judge 5