J. S. Mutungi vs University of Dar es Salaam (Misc. Civil Case 17 of 1994) [1999] TZHC 22 (29 January 1999)

TN THE H I G H C O U R T OF T A N Z A N I A A T . P AR E S S A L A A M MTSC. C T V T L C A S E NO. 17 OF 1994 J . S . MUTIJNGT ........................ A P P L I C A N T V E R S U S T HE IJNTVERSTTY OF DAR ES SALAAM. . . R E S P O N D E N T R U L I N G K A L K G K Y A . J . O n 17 \ 11 \ 9 5 . thi s court.. Bubeshi J . . o r d e r e d the Applicant.. J. S. M u t u n g i , t.o ame n d his c h a m b e r s u m m o n s t o g e t h e r w i t h its a c c o m p a n y i n g affi d a v i t . T his w a s a r e s u l t of a p r e 1 i m i n a r v o b j e c t i o n r a i s e d by the R e s p o n d e n t s . U n i v e r s i t y of Dar es S a l a a m c h a l l e n g i n g the p r o v i s i o n s of the law on w h i c h the a p p l i c a t i o n had b e e n b r o u g h t . Let me p o s e a littl e here and r e l a t e b r i e f l y the b a c k g r o u n d l e a d i n g to th is sta t e of af fai rs. The A p p l l e a n t was e m p l o y e d by the R e s p o n d e n t on 2 7 \ 2 \ 7 0 as an A c c o u n t s C l e r k at a m o n t h l y s a l a r y of £ 360 p.a. On 1 7 \11\81 his e m p l o y m e n t w a s t e r m i n a t e d a l l e g e d l y for n e g l i g e n c e w h i c h led to th eft of a c h e q u e w o r t h IJS. $ 52.. 260./= i ssued a s ^ a ^ g r a n t and later fou nd to h a v e b een c & t J i d in G e n e v a . By th en he^beeri? p r o m o t e d to Accountant. G r a d e T. He c o u l d not a c c e p t the t e r m i n a t i o n h e n c e his appeal to the C o n c i l iat ion B o a r d w h i c h u p h e l d Ins c o m p l a i n t and so is the M i n i s t e r r e s p o n s i b l e for L a b o u r m a t t e r s to w h o m the R e s p o n d e n t s a p p e a l e d to c h a l l e n g e the B o a r d ' s decision. The M i n i s t e r o r d e r e d for his r e - i n s t a t e m e n t . I n s t e a d of r e i n s t a t i n g him the Res pondent p a i d h i m t e rminal b e n e f i t s a m o u n t i n g to s h s . 1 .1 S3.32 0 . 3 5 . D i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h this . A p p l i c a n t filed an a p p l i c a t i o n ci Ivina 0.20.. R.6 and S. 33 of the CPC.. 1966 as well as s. 41 of S e c u r i t y 1

of Employment. Act. Cap. 57 4.. p r a y i n g for., a m o n g othe rs, the fcflowina o r d e r A - "That this Hon. C o u r t . . .order the R e s p o n d e n t to p a y to the a p p l i c a n t a sum of Tshs .* 12 ,627 ,908N.65 b e i n g t e r m i n a l b e n e f i t s and s t a t u t o r y c o m p e n s a t i o n o r d e r e d u n d e r s. 40 A (5) of the S e c u r i t y of E m p l o y m e n t Act. Cap. 5 74". N y a n g a r i k a , A d v o c a t e , for the R e s p o n d e n t s rais e d o b j e c t i o n a l r e a d y r e f e r r e d to - that the w r o n g p r o v i s i o n s of the law w e r e cited - w h i c h o b j e c t i o n wa s s u s t a i n e d and the cour t ordet'ed. "T am mindful of the fact that the a p p l i c a n t is a layman - h e n c e not c o n v e r s a n t wit h the t e c h n i c a l i t i e s of the law. To that end I w o u l d a l l o w hi m leave to ame nd his c h a m b e r a p p l i c a t i o n in line w i t h s e c t i o n 27 and 40 A(5) of S e c u r i t y of E m p l o y m e n t Act, cap. 574 and 0.2 1 Rule 20. Th e a p p l i c a n t can c l a i m d a m a g e s a r i s i n g from the R e s p o n d e n t ' s fai l u r e to c o m p l y w i t h the d e c i s i o n of the M i nister". The A p p l i c a n t p r o c e e d e d and ame n d e d both his c h a m b e r s u m m o n s and a f fidavit. For the c h a m b e r s u m m o n s he i n d i c a t e d that he was a c t i n g " u n d e r s e c t i o n s 27., 41.. 40A(5) and 50 of the S e c u r i t y of E m p l o y m e n t act. 574: 0.21. Rule s 20 and 30 of the Civil P r o c e d u r e Code, 1966 p l u s a ny o ther e n a b l i n g p r o v i s i o n s of the law. He a l s o mad e o ther a m e n dments. He add ed two mo re R e s p o n d e n t s

• Prof. D. J. M k u d e and H a s h i m Ham za Mtanga, and a m p l i f i e d ori the pr a y e r s , a m o n g other s, w h i c h run as under: "1. Th at Prof. D. J. Mkude , the Chi ef A d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c e r and H a s h i m Ham7.a Mtanga, the Pri ncipal o f f i c e r of the U n i v e r s i t y of Dar es Salaam, judgement, debtor , be call e d upo n to s h o w c ause w h y they shou l d not be d e t a i n e d as civ il p r i s o n e r s for r e f u s i n g to coitid I v w i t h the d e c i s i o n of the M i n i s t e r for F.abour d ated 5 \ 4 \ 9 3 . 2

2. That in a d diti on, or in the a l t e r n a t i v e the A p p l i c a n t be a w a r d e d d a m a g e s for f a i l u r e of the j u d g e m e n t - d e b t o r to c a r r y out the M i n i s t e r ' s d e c i s i o n d ated 5\5\95. A N D . .
3. T h a t the A p p l i c a n t be pa id shs. 2.524.. 27 5 the a g g r e g a t e of s t a t u t o r y c o m p e n s a t i o n c o m p u t e d in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h S. 35 A N D a su m equal, to T w e l v e m o n t h s w a g e s a m o u n t i n a to shs. 2 ..019.. 420./= in ter ms of S e c t i o n 40A (5) of the s e c u r i t y of E m p l o y e m e n t Act... leave p a y of shs. 929.871./=.. S e n i o r Sta ff s u p e r a n u a t i o n * 1.. 097 .076./= , T r a n s p o r t of p e r s o n a l e f f e c t s 339.. 300./=.. t r a n s p o r t of f a m i l y 231.955./=. H o u s i n g a l l o w a n c e of shs. 1 . 0 0 5 , 7 2 0 / = a part from damag es.
4. T h a t upon f a i l u r e to s h o w caus e the two said o f f i c e r s . Prof. D. J. M k u d e and H a s h i m M t a n g a be d e t a i n e d as civil pr i s o n e r s .
5. T h a t the first R e s p o n d e n t j u d g e m e n t d e b t o r be p r o s e c u t e d of the o f f e n c e p r e s c r i b e d u n d e r s e c t i o n 50 o f * t h e S e c u r i t y of E m p l o y m e n t Act". W h e n the m a t t e r came b e f o r e the C o u r t (Bubesh.i J)^Mr. N y a n a a r i k a , A d v o c a t e , w h o r e p r e s e n t e d the R e s p o n d e n t s a g a i n r a i s e d a p r e l i m i n a r y o b j e c t i o n that, the c ourt o r d e r had m e r e l y a l l o w e d A p p l i c a n t to a m e n d the c h a m b e r a p p l i c a t i o n by p r o v i d i n a the n e c e s s a r y p r o v i s i o n s of the la w and not to b r i n g t o t a l l y a ne w c ause of a c t i o n i n v o l v i n g ne w p a r t i e s and n e w prayer s. He al so a r g u e d that, as the 3rd R e s p o n d e n t is no long er an e m p l o y e e of the 1st R e s p o n d e n t he can not in law be jo ined in this matter. He f u r t h e r a r g u e d that an a f f i d a v i t could not be ame n d e d and that if he w i s h e d he c o u l d b r i n g a s u p p l e m e n t a r y affida vit. He p r a y e d for d ismissal of the a p p l i c a t i o n for o f f e n d i n g 0.6, Rules 16 and 18 CPC. Mr. M b u y a for A p p l i c a n t c o u n t e r e d by a r g u i n g that t h e r e is n o t h i n g n e w in the a p p l i c a t i o n ; that all p r a y e r s rel a t e to an a p p l i c a t i o n to have the R e s p o n d e n t s c o m p l y w i t h the M i n i s t e r ' s o r d e r of re-instatement.. 3

The m a t t e r was then r e s e r v e d for a ruling. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , however., in b e t w e e n , M a d a m e Bube s h i , J, r e a l i s e d tha t she had b e e n a p p o i n t e d a m e m b e r to the U n i v e r s i t y of Dar es S a l a a m C o u n c i l an d e x c u s e d h e r s e l f fr o m f u r t h e r d e a l i n g w i t h this ma tter, it w a s r e - a s s i g n e d to Kaji, J. Up o n m o v i n g on t r a n s f e r the m a t t e r w a s r e - a s s i g n e d to me. W h e n it ca m e b e f o r e me, T p r o c e e d e d w i t h it u n a w a r e that t h e r e w a s a r u l i n g pend i n g . A l t h o u g h the A p p l i c a n t w a s p r e s e n t in p e r s o n and Mr. N y a n g a r i k a still r e p r e s e n t e d the R e s p o n d e n t s , T t h i n k al s o d u e to i n a d v e r t e n c y , n o n e b o t h e r e d to p o i n t th is out to me, and we p r o c e e d e d to fix d a t e s for f i l i n g w r i t t e n s u b m i s s i o n s . The A p p l i c a n t d u l y c o m p l i e d w i t h the o r d e r but the R e s p o n d e n t s didn't. B e l a t e d l y , for u n k n o w n r e a s o n s ^ R e s p o n d e n t s w e r e j o l t e d to t heir alC-#r£ness and s w i f t l y f i l e d a r e p l y out of time (and w i t h o u t leav e of the cou r t ) and t h e r e i n p o i n t e d out the d e f e c t w h i c h had t o u c h e d the p r o c e d u r e : th a t w h a t w a s b e i n g a w a i t e d wa s a rulina. I hav e g o n e t h r o u g h the b a c k g r o u n d d e t a i l e d l v for cla r i t y , I n d e e d the last o r d e r of a r g u i n g the mai n a p p l i c a t i o n w a s p r e m a t u r e l y made, for , it c o u l d o n l y be a r g u e d a f t e r d i s p o s i n g the p r e l i m i n a r y o b j e c t i o n w h i c h was ful ly a r g u e d b e f o r e Bu beshi J. and r u l i n g rese rved . H a v i n g so d i s c o v e r e d T h e r e b y p r o c e e d to give the r e l e v a n t r u l i n g . I h a v e c a r e f u l l y c o n s i d e r e d the a r g u m e n t s p r e s e n t e d b e f o r e M a d a m e B u b e s h i , J, an d the r e l e v a n t law and hav e a r r i v e d at the f o l l o w i n g f i n dings. 0.6,. Ru l e 16 and 1.8 of the C i v i l P r o c e d u r e C o d e c i t e d by Mr. N y a n g a r i k a are i r r e l e v a n t here. The C o u r t did not s t r i k e out a p p l i c a n t ' s p l e a d i n g s ; it s i m p l y d i r e c t e d a m e n d m e n t s , and not for b e i n g u n n e c e s s a r y , s c a n d a l o u s . p r e j u d i c i a l , e m b a r r a s s i n g or ............ to d e l a y t rial as p r o v i d e d u n d e r 0.6, R u l e 16 CPC but s i m p l y b e c a u s e it c i t e d w r o n g p r o v i s i o n s of the law. N e i t h e r is 0.6, Rul e 18 a p p l i c a b l e ^ f o r ,

i n d e e d t h e a p p l i c a n t e f f p r f p H m a d e h i m ( N y a n g a r i k a ) t o V o m o l a ^ n 1 7 ^ a m e n c i m e n t s

• ;mu ia i n . in a n v p a o^s ^ ^ _ n o t l i m i t t h e e x t e n t w h i r-h i ' ’ ' R u l e 1 7 d o e s c o u r t g r a n t s l e a v e " * * " ^ o n c e the a l l o w e i t h e r D a r t v to a?f ° f the p r o c e e d ings in s u c h m a n n e r a n d on such^-pJ- h i ' S p I e a d i n 9s all s u c h a m e n d m e n t s s h a l l be m s _,as m a y be just, a n d c o m p a r e ^ t o T o r T r ^ Z T ^ « centre on o n . T Z / 2 ^ ' “ r ‘ 9 h M y *" of re-instatement It should £ 7 7 7 ^ ° rd- ( B u b e s h i , J . ) w h i c h all a no e t h a t e v e n t h e c o u r t o r d e r to m e r e a m e n d m e n t of ^ r t ^ o n T ^ d l d n o t l i m i t A p p l i c a n t
• n t us to b e l i e v e - n 1 ^ ‘ * ~ i k a - u l d d a m a g e s if he w i s h e d . ° ^ ^ ^ f,,rther a n d "PPJ-Y for C o n c e r n i n g t h e c o m o l a i n t th at f hB ^ » lonapv f , . . . -nat the 3rd Respondent isno -longer in the e rn D .l ovment of fhc 1 « subject of arguments during the hear in T o T t T ' that “ ° U,d itself. * e mair* application be w h i r r ^ r ^ j r ^ ^ r r the ar9'm e n t ^ «>»o«»a nof. with Mr. Nyangarika, A d v o ^ t e t h a T ^ J n e ' ! " 39rsem8nt evidence, leaallv it a * genera ]y affidavits being / ^ydiiy,, it sounds odd to fK , f amended hi., evidence. The ' / Wttn*« "»» c o m e a c r o s s a n e w fart to - ™ c e u r e is for a p a r t y w h o has affidavit. However : sl f ^ T 3 where there i, a valid ‘ P y ,ffll,,v,f only be Fi 1art a p p l i c a t i o n b e f o r e the Court- rn ™ - ° - - « ^ ^ r r : u ; : ' j hot t r r r * a ° -
• — , W h . h supp_

s u m m o n s is fi led tbs affidavit, in s u p p o r t the r e o f c a n n o t be t e r m e d as " s u p p l e m e n t a r y " for t here is no a f f i d a v i t , l e g a l l y r e c o g n i s a b l e on record, w h i c h can be s u p p l e m e n t e d , but rather, it is th at t h e r e is an in d e p e n d e n t , a f f i d a v i t by itself in support, of the a m e n d e d ap p l i c a t i o n . N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g the a bove o b s e r v a t i o n , I d on't go w i t h Mr. N v a n g a r i k a that this (enf.it lina it as a m e n d e d a f f i d a v i t ) is a defect w h i c h goe s to the roo t of the sa id a f f i d a v i t c o n d e m n i n g it to be s t r u c k out. This is one of a c c o m m o d a t a b l e erro r s on an affi d a v i t , w h i c h can easi.lv be s t r u c k off l e a v i n g the rest intact and lega l v adm i s s i b l e . For this r e a s o n the o f f e n d i n g w o r d " A m e n d e d " a p p e a r i n g in the t itle of the r e l e v a n t a f f i d a v i t is struck off, l e a v i n g the rest of the a f f i d a v i t intact. On the w h o l e ther e f o r e , for r e a s o n s d i s c u s s e d , save for this last o b s e r v a t i o n , the R e s p o n d e n t s p r e l i m i n a r y o b j e c t i o n s are dismi ssed . (T,. B . Ka legeva ) J U D G E