National Milling Corporation vs Minister for Labour Youth Development and Another (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 59 of 1991) [1998] TZHC 2066 (29 October 1998)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF 'l'AilluIA AT DAR t::S t:;;l.LAAM NATIONAL MILLING CORPOHATION 00000000000000000000000 Versus APPLICANT MINISTER FOR LABOUR YOU'i'H D.6Vli:LOPMl•NT AND ANOTHER ••••• RESPONDT / / R U L I N G '_,,. JI Th is a Ruling on . preliminary points raised by Mrs Mulebya, leari;iid couns.:l for th8 first respondent, and the Honourable the Attorney General. The first preliminary point ra.ised was that the affidavit in support of the application Was incurably ·defective. The second point raised 1:13.s th.at this Court has no jurisdiction in the matter. The history of the matter is that the applicu.."1t was granted leave to apply for orders of certiorari &nd stdy of execution. On th~ qu2stion of the npplicaats I affidavit, \vhose deponent is one Rosalia Makalle, I•'trs. Mulebya submitted th .. t the statement in paragr2.ph 13 of that affidavit, the deponent states that it is made on informa,tion and b tlfof without disclosing the source; .:n1d so the s«me was incurably defective and cannot, for that reason, be acted upon. VT. i✓ ·3rerna f.or the Attorney General, took the same view. On the question of jurisdiction, Mrs. Mulebya submitted that this Court haJ no juris1iction in vi0w of ss.41 and 42 of the Security of Employment Act, and s.27 of the J: 1 ermanent Labour 'I'ribunal Act as am.md8d by s .8 of Act lo. 3 of 1990, in that undr those provisions ~ the applicants are su[;posed to enforcG th~~ Ai-1ard and not c11allenge it "' in this ma..rmer beca.us(;l it is a. d~ cision of the Industrial Court and . r 1 ~-rro't 't:11a-t of the Minister. ' ,,.. .. Viy- I

2 In his written submissions in rei)ly, learned counsel for the applic.:mts submit .ed that the r.;;,spond,::nts had not shown which facts are not properly depose to, and that in cmy case there were facts properly deposed to on which the court should act. On the question of jurisdiction, learned counsel submitted that this court has jurisdiction in the matter as held by the Court of Appeal of Tanzania in D~ .... B-.Jaijage v. l<sso Standard, C.A.T. Civil Appeal No.10 of 1982. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. I ';\ respectfully agrae that the affidavit in support of the.application is defectiv,a in that no source of information has been dislosed by the deponent. In that regard, it was incurably defective. . Secondly since ,_' . t.nis was an award, it iG my view thG.t the matter can only ffeoperly come before this Court by way of appeal. For these reasons, this application is l1ereby dismissed with costs. 13. D. CHIPETA JUDGE : f /. •• I ! Ruling delivered in Chambers this 29th dRy of October, 1998. Capt. Sanze for applicant. Mrs Mulebya for 1st Respondent Mr. Songoro for 2nd Respondent B. D. CHIPE'1 1 A JUDG~~ :"\ I \ .. ~'