| dc.contributor.author | KWARIKO. J.A., LEVIRA, J.A AND MWAMPASHI, J.A. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2023-05-09T10:52:04Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2023-05-09T10:52:04Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2022-07-19 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://localhost/handle/123456789/1252 | |
| dc.description | IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT MWANZA CIVIL APPEAL NO. 106 OF 2019, MHUBIRI ROGEGA MONG'ATEKO VS. MAK MEDICS LTD.
[Appeal from the Ruling of the High Court of Tanzania, Mwanza District Registry at Mwanza by Rumanyika. J dated 31st January 2019 in Labour Revision no. 9 of 2017]
Labour law - Termination of employment - whether the termination of appellant was fair after freely admitting the liability of the case.
Evidence law - Tendering of document - whether document which is not admitted in evidence can be treated as forming part of record.
The appeal originates from the decision before the commission for mediation and arbitration whereby the appellant was employed by the respondent as a drugs order recorder. His duties were to check inventory, handling purchases and returns and keeping records. The appellant caused loss of TZS. 150,000,000.00 being the property of his employer. He was charged and convicted before the District Court of Nyamagana with the offence of stealing by servant in Criminal Case No. 557 of 2012. The appellant admitted liability with a common understanding to repay the same. At the end, he was terminated from employment. At the end of the trial, the CMA found that the appellant's termination was fair and the procedure was followed. The complaint was thus dismissed. the appellant applied for revision before the High Court but he was not successful. He has filed this appeal before this Court against the decision of the High Court upon several grounds of appeal. The Court of the appeal was able to determine whether the High Court was proper to upheld the findings of CMA.
HELD
(i) Upon admitting the liability with common understanding to repay the same, itcannot be said that such termination was un fair.
(ii) It is trite law that, a document which is not admitted in evidence cannot be treated as forming part of the record even if it is found amongst the papers in the record of appeal.
(iii) it is clear that the two courts below relied on the evidence which was not tendered and admitted in evidence as per the requirement of the law. This omission led to miscarriage of justice because the appellant was adjudged on the basis of the evidence which was not properly admitted in evidence.
Statutory Provision
Employment and Labour Relations Act, No. 6 of 2004; now CAP 366 R.E. 2019
Casesrefered
Chantal Tito Mziray& Another v. Ritha John Makala & Another, Civil Appeal No. 59 of 2018 (unreported),
Shemsa Khalifa & Two Others v. Suleiman Hamed Abdallah, Civil Appeal No. 82 of 2012
Godbless Jonathan Lema v. Mussa Hamis Mkanga& Two Others, Civil Appeal No. 47 of 2012 | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract | (i) Upon admitting the liability with common understanding to repay the same, itcannot be said that such termination was un fair.
(ii) It is trite law that, a document which is not admitted in evidence cannot be treated as forming part of the record even if it is found amongst the papers in the record of appeal.
(iii) it is clear that the two courts below relied on the evidence which was not tendered and admitted in evidence as per the requirement of the law. This omission led to miscarriage of justice because the appellant was adjudged on the basis of the evidence which was not properly admitted in evidence. | en_US |
| dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
| dc.publisher | THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA, MWANZA. | en_US |
| dc.subject | MWANZA. | en_US |
| dc.title | MHUBIRI ROGEGA MONG'ATEKO VS. MAK MEDICS LTD CIVIL APPEAL NO. 106 OF 2019. | en_US |
| dc.title.alternative | CIVIL APPEAL NO. 106 OF 2019. | en_US |
