Joseph Maniumba and Another vs James Mayunga Lusendamila (HC Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1996) [2000] TZHC 604 (20 April 2000)

" .. .- •• 41: ........ ..! .. .., •. IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT MWANZA : ,,·; . . . - ?C CIVIL APPEAL NOo 10 OF 1996 ORIGINAL CIVIL CASE NO; 2/95 · OF NGUDU DIS'l'RICT \ ' . . ·•· . 'co~~' AT NGUDU . ' ' " . J. t . u: -i •.' JOSEPH N/iNUMBA & ANOTHER •e ._., o o • -APPEtlANT J .~ ... •.' ·Versus ·• , JAMES MAYUNGA LUSENDAMILA ·.,o 0. O 0 RE',SPONDENT " \ <. ..... • ~ I f 1 l . ' ' . ' J U D, G. M E . N T 'I NCHALLA 1 J. ' '•, -ft--:: This is an appeal by two !3-ppel+alJs namely Joseph MaJH.ll'llba and , . '., V Elikana Kasenghwa who were th~ Chairm~ and Deputy chairm~.tl.';;cespe- ;' . ctiveJ.y- o·f"N'yigarnba co-operativ society .in Kwimba District who ' . . . . . .. ' . . .... . :.. ..... , were'; joint'ly:·sued· .by· the -.respondent. '1's Maypnga usendamila for .. ~ . . arrears of salaries which the, -repo_ndent who was the Secretary of the ~ . · . ~ . . - . Nyamigamba Co-operative Sociey a+eged were un~~id"for the period from 1,8f- 1994. The sit· was .,filed· in the District court at Ngudu, ' ., ..... Kwimba District I The respondent··. ./on ·the suit, hence this appeal •. It is surprising that the trial District Magistrate Mr. Madebele entertained the original suit which was legally incompetent· as, the same was levelled against wrong defendants. The defendruit ]~pellants ,. ' \ . I 4 \ .,. were not the office bearers of Nyamigamba Co-operative Society in the period covered by respondent's claim, hence the appellants were nnt employers nor representatives of the respondent 1 s employer, the Nyamigamba Co-operative Society. Hence the appellants a.re not liable to the respondent in his claim in anyway. It is the Nyamiga- mba Co-operative Society the respondent's employer which is liable and it is that society which is the necessary defendant in the claim of the respondent. The respondent has honestly conceded to this ••• /2.

.,, .. . . ...• ~ ., ., -~- ~ .... l - ~ ' I

• . ' '. --. . . , - crucial point in appeal., .consequently, I iind the appeal meritn- •; .. :•.• :), .• • __ ;, • f."•, '":: ••,•• '.,, : <. .,. " A,.•,:--, - - ~ rious., I allow the appeal. I ·quash; the judginenf•c:if :the trial ! District Court and set aside o:ny nrdyrs therein. The respondent,- . ' if st;i..:Ll diswsed, mey: file his claim agninst the pr-0per defendt, . ,. ~ ,. . ~ :r.:-·.;·: .· .. ,., •1, ,,. I his employer, the yamgambci Co-opertl.tive Society, subject to the .'.:•, - ' --l I,aw. of, lirpitElt,ion :and to the principle res-judicata •. Appeal allowed with costs. Order accordingly. courtt .. _ .. ' r : .·· AT MWANZA 20/4/2000 JUDGE 1 ' . . • •" .- , .. 29/4/2000 ..,. .. :,-~ _:, ·,, l: ... :.... ,! f I I I -<.J .. < ·<.,t:~2 I ,:;;-:,;:,. ··. ~- .. iJ:
• -· . ; . • . I Judgment delivere·d ·on .. the:i.pot:, af.:t;_er .:h:ear.in.g t~ ··::.J .. 26th. dciy bf Apri-r,- ·2oooi- · , JUDGE,, '•·· _.: -t:,11! •• .,. :L
• ..... ...: ./ ( ,. \ "