Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMKUYE, GALEBA, J.A. AND KAIRO, J.A J. A.
dc.date.accessioned2023-05-10T10:57:37Z
dc.date.available2023-05-10T10:57:37Z
dc.date.issued2022-07-21
dc.identifier.urihttp://localhost/handle/123456789/1266
dc.descriptionIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT SHINYANGA CORAM: MKUYE. J.A. GALEBA. J.A. And KAIRO. J.A. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 281 OF 2021 BULYANHULU GOLD MINES LIMITED VS. PASCHARY ANDREW STAN NY. [Appeal from the Decision of the High Court of Tanzania (Labour Division) at Shinyanga] (Mdemu, J.) dated the 26th day of February, 2021 in Labour Revision No. 8 of 202 Labour dispute -Unfair termination- burden of proof towards unfair termination in Labour cases Ground for termination on ground of illness.Paschary Andrew Stanny, the respondent, was employed by Bulyanhulu Gold Mines Limited, the appellant on 31st January 2008. He was employed to work in the appellant's Underground Mining Department at Kakola in Kahama, initially as a Mining Trainee. He was promoted from that original title to Miner 1, Miner 2, Miner 3 and his last position with the appellant was Scoop Operator at the time he was terminated on 315t January i 2019. His termination was due to ill health following impaired hearing capacity of his right ear. HELD i) In any proceedings concerning unfair termination of an employee by an employer, the employer shall prove that the termination is fair." The above section, comes out clearly that where there are allegations of unfair termination, the burden of proof that the termination complained of was fair, lies on the employer, and that is why, in Labour disputes it is the employer who starts to give evidence, though, a respondent, unlike in other civil matters and even criminal cases, where a party initiating the proceedings starts to adduceevidence and then a party sued comes next. ii) An employer who is considering to terminate an employee on grounds of ill health or injury shall take into account the following factors to determine the fairness of the reason in the circumstances (a) The cause of the incapacity; (b) The degree of the incapacity; (c) The temporary or permanent nature of the incapacity; (d) The ability to accommodate the incapacity; (s) The existence of any compensation or pension. iii) the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof placed on her by section 39 of the ELRA, of proving that the reason for terminating the respondent was valid. We therefore find no substantiated valid reason, for termination of the respondent if the basis was ill health. Hence, we find no merit in the 5th ground of appeal and we accordingly dismissed. Statutory provision reffered. Employment and Labour Relation Act Labour institution Act.en_US
dc.description.abstracti) In any proceedings concerning unfair termination of an employee by an employer, the employer shall prove that the termination is fair." The above section, comes out clearly that where there are allegations of unfair termination, the burden of proof that the termination complained of was fair, lies on the employer, and that is why, in Labour disputes it is the employer who starts to give evidence, though, a respondent, unlike in other civil matters and even criminal cases, where a party initiating the proceedings starts to adduceevidence and then a party sued comes next. ii) An employer who is considering to terminate an employee on grounds of ill health or injury shall take into account the following factors to determine the fairness of the reason in the circumstances (a) The cause of the incapacity; (b) The degree of the incapacity; (c) The temporary or permanent nature of the incapacity; (d) The ability to accommodate the incapacity; (s) The existence of any compensation or pension. iii) the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof placed on her by section 39 of the ELRA, of proving that the reason for terminating the respondent was valid. We therefore find no substantiated valid reason, for termination of the respondent if the basis was ill health. Hence, we find no merit in the 5th ground of appeal and we accordingly dismissed.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherTHE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA, SHINYANGA.en_US
dc.subjectSHINYANGA.en_US
dc.titleBULYANHULU GOLD MINES LIMITED VS. PASCHARY ANDREW STANNY CIVIL APPEAL NO. 281 OF 2021.en_US
dc.title.alternativeCIVIL APPEAL NO. 281 OF 2021en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record