Patrick George and 5 Others vs Geita Gold Mine Limited (Labour Revision No. 26177 of 2025) [2025] TZHC 8478 (19 December 2025)

Page 1 of 14 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA GEITA SUB - REGISTRY AT GEITA LABOUR REVISION NO. 26177 OF 2025 ( Arising from La bour Dispute No. CMA/GTA/GTA/24/2023 ) PATRICK GEORGE.......... .... ……………………………… . …………. 1 ST APP LICANT PASCHAL EDWARD NGEREJA .............................................2 ND RESPONDENT JOSEPH PETERSON .............................................................3 RD RESPONDENT FIKIRI EDWARD LUBINZA ..................................................4 TH RESPONDENT ERASTO LYIMO ...................................................................5 TH RESPONDENT HONEST LUDOVICK ............................................................6 TH RESPONDENT V ERSUS GEITA GOLD MINE LIMITED .. ……………………………… .. …… .... RESPONDENT RULING Date of last order: 07 /11/2025 Date of Ruling : 19 / 12/2025 MWAKAPEJE, J. : The applicants have brought this application pursuant to Rules 24(1), (2)(a – f), and (3)(a – d), and Rules 28(1)( c – e) of the Labour Courts Rules, GN No. 106 of 2007, as well as sections 91(a – b), 91(2)(c), and 94(1)(b)(i) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act, Cap. 366 R.E. 2023. The application arises from the applicants' dissatisfaction with the decision rendered in Labour Dispute No. CMA/GTA/GTA/24/2023, which was decided in favour of the respondent. The application is supported by the affidavit sworn by the applicants.

Page 2 of 14 Briefly, the facts of the case, as gleaned from the applicants' affidavit and the record, are that the applicants were employed by the respondent on diverse dates in different capacities under permanent contracts, which were terminated on medical (occupational) grounds. They challenge the arbitral award on the basis that it was irrational and improperly procured, arguing that the arbitrator failed to consider material issues, particularly that the applicants were covered under a life insurance policy and th at the respondent acted on their behalf in entering into the insurance agreement. They further allege that the arbitrator committed material irregularities and errors affecting the merits of the case, thereby occasioning injustice. The applicants contend that the application raises key legal issues concerning their coverage under the life insurance policy, the propriety of the arbitrator's finding that insurance benefits were to be claimed directly from the insurer, and the responden t's accountability for the payment of such benefits. On this basis, they seek revision and setting aside of the arbitral award in Labour Dispute No. CMA/GTA/GTA/24/2023, together with any other appropriate relief. The respondent opposed the application by way of a counter - affidavit sworn by its Medical Officer, Aalen Mtemi, asserting that the applicants were not covered under the life insurance policy and that the

Page 3 of 14 arbitrator correctly found that the respondent was not responsible for the payment of insurance benefits. He maintained that there were no material irregularities or errors in the proceedings, that the arbitral award was rational and lawfully issued by the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration, and that the application disclosed no grounds warranting revision. In addition, the respondent raised a preliminary objection, contending that the application was incompetent for contravening Rule 24(3)(a) and (b) of the Labour Court Rules, 2007, G.N. No. 106 of 2007, and prayed that it be struck out. Pursuant to the prayers of both parties on 7 November 2025, the Court directed that the application be disposed of by way of written submissions, with the preliminary objection and the substantive application to be heard concurrently. The applicants appear ed in person, while the respondent was represented by Mr. Faustin Anton Malongo, learned advocate. In accordance with the scheduling order, the respondent was required to file submissions in chief on the preliminary objection on or before 14 November 2025, while the applicants were to file their submissions in chief on the main application on the same d ate. The applicants were further directed to file their reply submissions on the

Page 4 of 14 preliminary objection on or before 21 November 2025, and the respondent to file reply submissions on the main application by the same date. Both parties were thereafter ordered to file their respective rejoinders, if any, on or before 26 November 2025. As a matter of practice, the Court first determines the preliminary objection before considering the merits of the application, where necessary. If the preliminary objection is upheld, it disposes of the matter in its entirety; if not, the Court proceeds t o determine the application on its merits. In the present case, however, the applicants failed to file their reply submissions on the preliminary objection as ordered. In the view of the Court, failure to file written submissions in response to a preliminary objection amounts to non - appearance and reflects a failure to defend one's case. This principle is well settled in procedural law: parties who do not comply with cou rt orders or fail to take the necessary steps to advance their claims or defences effectively forfeit their right to be heard on the matter. This position was affirmed in Omary Ndete vs Pili Sadan & Another (Land Revision No . 37 of 2021) [2022] TZHCLandD 218 (4 March 2022) , it was held that: “ This court has held time without number that failure to file written submissions as ordered by the court is akin to a failure to appear when the case is called on for hearing, and consequent orders for such non - appearance are inevitable. There is an unbroken chain of decisions of

Page 5 of 14 this court that so hold. These include Hidaya Zuberi v Bongwe Mbwana PC Civil Appeal No. 98 of 2003 DSM (unreported), Tanzania Harbours Authority v Mohamed R. Mohamed [2002] TLR 76; Patson Matonya v Registrar Industrial Court of Tanzania & Another, Civil Application No. 90 of 2011 and Geoffrey Kimbe v Peter Ngonyani, Civil Appeal No. 41 of 2014 (both unreported)" By failing to file a reply to the PO, the applicants demonstrated a lack of interest in defending their position . Consequently, the Court is entitled to proceed to determine the preliminary objection on the basis of the submissions filed by the respondent, who duly complied with the Court's directives. In support of the preliminary objection, learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Malongo, submitted that the application was incompetent for non - compliance with the mandatory requirements of Rule 24(3)(a) and (b) of the Labour Court Rules, G.N. No. 106 of 2007. He emphasised that the use of the word " shall " denotes a mandatory obligation, as affirmed under section 54(2) of the Interpretation of the Laws Act, Cap. 1 R.E. 2023. Counsel argued that the affidavit in support of the application was defective for failing to disclose the descriptions and addresses of the parties, contrary to Rule 24(3)(a). Relying on John Milindi Makoko v North Mara Gold Mine Limited [2025] TZHC 2974 (16 June 2025) and Adnan Mehboob Sadiq & Others v Aloyce Felix Maro & Another

Page 6 of 14 [2024] TZCA 1118 (19 November 2024) , he submitted that such non - compliance renders an affidavit defective and the entire proceedings a nullity. He further contended that the affidavit contravened Rule 24(3)(b) by failing to set out material facts in a chronological order, as it contained only general statements incapable of grounding the application. In support, he cited Kagera Sugar Limited v Pinian Ngatulile [2025] TZHC 6265 (16 October 2025) , where the Court held that failure to plead material facts in the prescribed manner renders an application incompetent, and Mikidadi Jagalaga & Others v Tanzania Ports Authority [2018] TZHCLD 42 (11 May 2018 ) , which affirmed that non - compliance with affidavit requirements invalidates a labour application. Finally, counsel submitted that these defects could not be cured by the overriding objective principle, as the breached provisions go to the root of the application. He relied on Mondorosi Village Council & Others v Tanzania Breweries Ltd & Others [2018] TZCA 303 (14 December 2018) , where the Court held that mandatory procedural requirements cannot be overridden by the oxygen principle. On this basis, counsel prayed that the preliminary objection be upheld and the application struck out for incompetence.

Page 7 of 14 Having considered the applicants' application together with the respondent's submissions on the preliminary objection, the issue for determination is whether the objection raised is meritorious. The law governing preliminary objections is well settled. A preliminary objection must be based on a pure point of law which, if argued on the face of the pleadings and without the need for further evidence, is capable of disposing of the matter in its ent irety. This principle was authoritatively stated in Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696, where the Court held that: " A preliminary objection consists of a point of law which has been pleaded, or which arises by clear implication out of pleadings, and which, if argued as a preliminary point, may dispose of the suit. Examples are an objection to the jurisdiction of the cou rt, or a plea of limitation, or a submission that the parties are bound by the contract giving rise to the suit to refer the dispute to arbitration. " In the present application, t he respondent's preliminary objection is based on alleged non - compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Labour Court Rules governing the form and content of affidavits. The objection raises a pure point of law, capable of being determined on the face of the record without recourse to evidence, and if upheld, it would dispose of th e application in its entirety.

Page 8 of 14 Rule 24(3)(a) and (b) of the Labour Court Rules, 2007 G.N. No. 106 of 2007, provides that: “The application shall be supported by an affidavit, which shall clearly and concisely set out — (a) the names, description and addresses of the parties . " (b) a statement of the material facts in a chronological order , on which the application is based; [Emphasis supplied] These provisions are mandatory and form the very foundation of any application before the Labour Court. They are designed to ensure that the Court and all parties have a clear and precise understanding of who the litigants are and the factual basis of the dispute. Compliance with these provisions safeguards the principles of natural justice by enabling proper identification of the parties, accurate service of process, and a clear presentation of material facts that can be legally evaluated. Failure to comply with these requirements, whether by omitting the full names, descriptions, or addresses of the parties under Rule 24(3)(a), or by presenting material facts in a vague, disorganised , or non - chronological manner under Rule 24(3)(b), renders the application procedurally defective. Such non - compliance goes to the root of the application and may justify striking it out , as the Court cannot properly exercise its jurisdiction over unidentified parties or in the absence of

Page 9 of 14 clearly pleaded material facts. In the case of John Milindi Makoko v North Mara Gold Mine Limited ( supra ) , this Court held that: “ I t has to be remembered that an affidavit in support of an application filed in the Labour Court is distinct from other affidavits . This being the court of record, it has the duty to make sure proper application of laws. See Adelina Koku Anifa and another vs Byarugaba Alex , Civil Appeal No. 46 of 2019 .” Looking at the applicants’ affidavit in the instant application, apart from listing their names and general personal attributes such as religion in the introductory paragraph, the applicants are nowhere properly described, nor are their respective addresse s disclosed. The introductory paragraph of the affidavit reads as follows: “ WE, PATRICK GEORGE, PASCHAL EDWARD NGEREJA, JOSEPH PETERSON, FIKIRI EDWARD LUBINZA, ERASTO LYIMO, HONEST LUDOVICK, Christians of sober and sound mind, adults, residents of Geita Region, DOTH HEREBY SWEAR and sincerely states as hereunder:” The above averments are merely recitals indicating the capacity in which the deponents were swearing the affidavit and that the matters deposed to were within their personal knowledge. Even if such statements were to be construed as a description of the ap plicants, they remain general and insufficient, as they do not satisfy the mandatory

Page 10 of 14 requirements of Rule 24(3)(a) of the Labour Court Rules, 2007, G.N. No. 106 of 2007. The rule requires that an affidavit clearly and concisely set out the names, descriptions, and addresses of the parties, a requirement that applies equally to both the app licants and the respondent. In the present application, there are no specific paragraphs in the affidavit that properly describe the parties or disclose their respective addresses as required by the rule. With respect to the applicants, compliance with Rule 24(3)(a) entails the disclosure of specific and precise particulars such as each applicant's occupation, designation or capacity in employment, and full residential or business address. In the absence of such particulars, the affidavit obscures the applicants' identity and hampers the proper administration of justice, including effective service of court process and the respondent's ability to respond meaningfully to the claims. Equally important, the respondent is nowhere described in the affidavit, as rightly argued by learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Malongo. Despite being a mining company, the respondent must be specifically identified in accordance with the letter and spirit of Rule 24(3)(a). This requires the affidavit to clearly state the respondent's full legal name, its nature or capacity , namely, as a corporate entity and employer , and its full physical or postal address. Such particulars are

Page 11 of 14 indispensable for proper identification, facilitation of service of process, and the effective exercise of the Court's jurisdiction. Therefore, in this application, f ailure to properly describe both the applicants and the respondent, as required by Rule 24(3)(a), renders the affidavit defective and undermines the procedural foundation of the application in a labour dispute . It leaves the Court unable to identify the parties before it clearly and prejudices the respondent's right to know who is making the claim and where the claimants may be reached, as well as the applicants' ability to establish the identity and address of the party against whom relief is sought. With regard to Rule 24(3)(b) of the Labour Court Rules, 2007, G.N. No. 106 of 2007, the affidavit in support of the application does not disclose material facts stated in chronological order. A careful examination of paragraphs 1 to 5 of the affidavit reve als only generalised statements, devoid of legally recognisable material facts upon which the Court can properly evaluate the application. For clarity, the relevant paragraphs of the affidavit state as follows: " 1. That we are the Applicants in this instant Application , hence well - versed and conversant with what I state in the subsequent paragraphs. 2. That on diverse dates we were employed by the Respondent under different capacities.

Page 12 of 14 3. That we served our contracts until it comes to an end on medical ground (Occupational), category of the employment contract entered between the parties were permanent contracts. 4. That we aggrieved by the decision of the arbitrator on the said award for being irrational and improperly procured hence this instant Application for Revision. 5. That, the Arbitral award was irrational procured for the arbitrator to failure to take into consideration of the following: (i) The Honorable Arbitrator grossly erred in law in her findings when failed to acknowledge applicants werecovered under Life Insurance policy. ( ii) That, the Honorable Arbitrator grossly erred in law in his findings when failed to acknowledge respondent was acting on behalf of the Applicants on the agreement for life Insurance policy.” From the above excerpt, it cannot be said that the affidavit contains a statement of material facts as envisaged under Rule 24(3)(b). The paragraphs merely consist of introductory averments, conclusions, opinions, and alleged errors of law attributed to th e arbitrator. They do not disclose specific facts, events, or occurrences capable of being proved or disproved, nor are they presented in a coherent chronological sequence linking the facts to the relief sought. Material facts form the factual foundation of any legal application and must disclose, in chronological order, the acts or omissions giving rise to the dispute . This C ourt in the case of Kagera Sugar Limited v Pinian Ngatulile ( supra) , 16 October 2025) , held that:

Page 13 of 14 “The word material facts can be defined as : An actual thing, happening, or state of affairs that is capable of being proved true or false, and is subject to evaluation by a fact finder, such as a jury or judge. Facts are different from opinions and can include anything perceptible by the senses or any mental condition a person is conscious of. They are the basis for legal claims and defences and are proved or disproved by presenting evidence at trial”. In the present case, the affidavit fails to set out essential particulars such as the dates of employment, the nature of the alleged insurance arrangement, the terms of the policy, the role allegedly played by the respondent, or the factual basis upon whic h liability is asserted. In the absence of such facts, the Court is left with bare assertions and conclusions, which do not meet the threshold required under Rule 24(3)(b). From the foregoing, it is evident that the applicants have breached a mandatory procedural provision of Rule 24(3)(a) and (b) of the Labour Court Rules, 2007 GN. No. 107 of 2007. The Court, noting that the applicants did not contest the preliminary objecti on, concurs with the submission of learned counsel, Mr. Malongo, that non - compliance with mandatory procedural requirements is fatal to the application and cannot be remedied under the overriding objective principle. In the result, this Court finds merit in the preliminary objection and hereby upholds it. Considering the defectiveness of the affidavit, t he

Page 14 of 14 application is found to be incompetent and is accordingly struck out. As this is a labour matter, no order as to costs is made. It is so ordered. DATED at GEITA this 1 9 th day of December 202 5 . G.V. MWAKAPEJE JUDGE