Mpanda District Council vs Elrard s/o Sospitier (DC Civil Appeal No 22 of 1997) [1999] TZHC 415 (14 September 1999)

j . f IN TH~ HIGH COURT OF T;;.Nz,:;NIA ORIG W;,L JUTIL3DICTION (Mbey3. Regintry) MPAND;\ DISTRICT COUNCIL O O O o d O O o O O o o ,,PPELL!H{T Versus : ' . SOSPliTI1ER •'ooooooaoolono REGPONDENT JUDG}'i3NT 11s afoementioned in D'.J 6ivil Appeal No. 23/97 I wished to consolidte the said judgment for they ariEe from c1 simil3r act, being the dismissal of the res-::iondent from ½is e:npl_0yment. But since ·the preliminr..ry objectbn '.-as over ruled I wil proceed with them sep;:u-ately. Manj grounds have been urged b support c,f the appeBl being th.-::i.t:-

1. The trinl Resic:.s:mt M.~,.s:;istrecte erred in 12,w, in entertaining the said suit whe .. '1 the court 1:1,d no jurisdiction to entertain the suit •.
2. Th0 learned tri,3J_ magistrate erred" in bis evaluaticn of . evidence before hii'l• The judgment of the court is bad in law for it is incG.pable of exec·c.tion as it did not conslussi vely d,;,ter:nine the iss;1es framed -:m.d the rights of the p-3..,·~ies and that the judgrnent was not SUJ:)ported by the evidence on record imd thus praying the appeal be allowed with costs •. The grq,unds against the appe:-,1 include the facts thats:- . ; 1 0 • The court h'.'1.cl. juri,s1iction to entertain the case· under the ffinployment Ordinance and tbe evidence was properly ane,ly,sed6
3. ··The judgment was sound and capable of execution a.nd the.fact that the appellants have stai'Md'1paying then :they are estopped to pursue the app,eG.l,. Furt~rmore \ there was strong evirience to sustain the judgment.
4. · That the ~Jri tten Statement of Devence <las time bared ,:md th.ns prRying for the dismissal of t.b& appeal with ..... · ...

• 2 Its worth nothing that the issue of the :'J.2-.Do being time barred is not discussed so and will not talk of it too •• The other issues were disci.:.ssed and argued at len:=sth. \rJbat I c3..1/say after hearing both parties ;:,.nd. havin gone throu,-sh the proceedings of the lower court is that,-

1. The respondent was summarily dismissed by the appellants. The letter reads ''Kufukuz,wa: 1 aud so he was not terminated i! e 1 1 kuachishwa v. I would hold that u.."1.less and has been terminated thats unless he can be entitled to terminal benefits and not f::)r a person who has been summarily dismissed.
2. Its true that under the Security of Employment Act no one can challange a summary dismissal successfully in a court of l::.:n-1. Moreov3r, since the respondent had started the process by complaining to the Regional Commissioner under the provisions of s.14 (c) (b) of the Local Government Service Act as amended by Act No 4 23/91 then, it ¼18.S improper fo~ him to colic to court before his matt,ir was fully adjucated upon, for he would still have a right to appeal b,:,fore the courts of lawL
3. Assuming my opinion on the issue of summary dismissal and termination above is enough, I again feel that even if the awards will be said to be justified i.e. terminal benefits but they exceed the pecuniary jurisaiction of the trial court" T:1is was raised before in a prelimin2ry objection but was overuledo I saw no counter claim filed, but the decree issued.ft11llwing the claims filed by the respondent in itself being Tshs52,650,400/= exc_eeds the trial courts pecuniary jurisdictie3!l and was therefore wrongly filed before that court. Now having noted that the trial court had no jurisdiction to try the matter it goes· wi t_hout saying therefore that the appeal cannot be ignored. . For. this tqree reason,s stated a'oo 0 re, I accordinglJ allow the appeal with costs a The respondent is at liberty to either follNJ his matter at the Eegionl Commissioner 1 s0ffice or file a fresh suit in a court with, co~~tcnt _jisd.iction to adjudicate the. .same... • • o, • o o/3

For For 3 Right of AppeEtl is also 2xplained4 . l ,"' • • I r .•' t.~,/ >/ S.:\oN'. 'tJar.obura I (PRM (E.,T.) 1Lf/9/19J9 i I; ' ii . I . I . i ( I e. 'I ' 'i , I '' . i /