Browsing Labour Law by Issue Date
Now showing items 1-6 of 6
-
ST. JOSEPH KOLPING SECONDARY SCHOOL VS. ALVERA KASHUSHURA CIVIL APPEAL NO. 377 OF 2021.
(THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA, BUKOBA., 2022-07-16)(i) Termination of service is said to be fair according to section 37(2) if it is based on fair and valid reasons and carried out in observance of fair procedures stipulated in the provisions of ELRA. therefore, the Labour ... -
MHUBIRI ROGEGA MONG'ATEKO VS. MAK MEDICS LTD CIVIL APPEAL NO. 106 OF 2019.
(THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA, MWANZA., 2022-07-19)(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 ... -
BULYANHULU GOLD MINES LIMITED VS. PASCHARY ANDREW STANNY CIVIL APPEAL NO. 281 OF 2021.
(THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA, SHINYANGA., 2022-07-21)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 ... -
BULYANHULU GOLD MINES LIMITED VS. KENETH ROBERT FOURIE. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 105 OF 2021
(THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA, SHINYANGA., 2022-07-22)The court was on the view that it is appropriate, to lay ground as for this Court's position generally, on issues of taking evidence from witnesses in all courts. Before taking evidence from a witness in a court of law, ... -
KIBOBERRY LIMITED VS. JOHN VAN DER VOORT CIVIL APPEAL NO. 248 OF 2021.
(THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA, MOSHI., 2022-10-07)Held: (i) …the failure to involve the appellant in the investigation that led to the formulation of the report coupled with the omission to share a copy thereof with the respondent was a serious irregularity. Inevitably, ... -
COSTANTINE VICTOR JOHN VS. MUHIMBILI NATIONAL HOSPITAL. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 188/01 OF 2021.
(THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA, DAR ES SALAAM., 2022-10-19)Held; The said grounds one, two and four are not grounds of review envisaged under Rule 66 (1) (a) of the Rules as they require the Court to re-asses the evidence. The raised grounds do not depict an obvious or patent ...