CAPITAL DRILLING (T) LIMITED VS. ALEX BARTHAZALI KABENDERA CIVIL APPEAL NO. 370 OF 2019

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorMUGASHA, KEREFU, J.A. And KIHWELO. J.A. J.A.
dc.date.accessioned2023-04-28T06:36:10Z
dc.date.available2023-04-28T06:36:10Z
dc.date.issued2022-07-13
dc.descriptionCAPITAL DRILLING (T) LIMITED VS. ALEX BARTHAZALI KABENDERA COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT MWANZA [MUGASHA, KEREFU, KIHWELO, JJ.A.] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 370 OF 2019. (From the Decision of the High Court of Tanzania, Labour Division at Mwanza (Gwae. J.) dated the 19th day of February, 2019 in Revision Application No. 18 of 2017) Civil Practice and procedure-hearing of the case-testimonies of witnesses received without oath or affirmation-whether the omission to do so vitiates proceedings The appellant, Capital Drilling (T) Limited, was seeking to challenge the decision of the High Court of Tanzania, at Mwanza (Gwae, J.) dated 19th February, 2019 which reversed the decision of the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration (CMA) in Employment Dispute No. CMA/MZ/GEITA/199/2016 which dismissed the respondent's complaint on account that the appellant had proved and established that there were sufficient reasons that warranted the respondent's termination of employment and that the procedure for termination was also fair. When, eventually, the appeal was placed before the Court, before it could go into the hearing of the appeal in earnest, the Court prompted the learned counsel to address it on the apparent infraction which came to the notice of the Court upon scrutiny of the record of appeal that, witnesses by both sides were not sworn in or affirmed before their respective testimonies were recorded at the CMA. Upon a brief dialogue between the bench and the bar, it was unanimously agreed that counsel should address the Court in that issue. Held 1. Clearly, taking oath before testifying is a mandatory requirement that cannot be glossed over and its omission vitiates the proceedings since it renders the evidence invalid. It is so ordered Statutory Provisions referred to: 1. Labour Institutions (Mediation and Arbitration Guidelines) Rules, GN No. 67 of 2007 Rule 19 (2) (a) and 25 (1) 2. The Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act, Cap. 34 R.E 2019 Sections 2 and 4 3. The Appellate Jurisdiction Act, Cap. 141 R.E 2019 Section 4(2) Cases referred to: 1. Copycat Tanzania Limited v. Mariam Chamba, Civil Appeal No. 404 of 2020[Unreported] 2. Catholic University of Health and Allied Science (CUHAS) v. Epiphania Mkunde Athanase, Civil Appeal No. 257 of 2020[Unreported] 3. Unilever Tea Tanzania Limited v. Davis Paulo Chaula, Civil Appeal No. 290 of 2019 [unreported]. Ms. Ernestilla John Bahati Learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. Innocent Michael, learned Advocate for the Respondenten_US
dc.description.abstractClearly, taking an oath before testifying is a mandatory requirement that cannot be glossed over and its omission vitiates the proceedings since it renders the evidence invalid.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://localhost/handle/123456789/1085
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherTHE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA, MWANZA.en_US
dc.subjectMWANZA.en_US
dc.titleCAPITAL DRILLING (T) LIMITED VS. ALEX BARTHAZALI KABENDERA CIVIL APPEAL NO. 370 OF 2019en_US
dc.title.alternativeCIVIL APPEAL NO. 370 OF 2019.en_US

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
10. CAPITAL DRILLING (T) LIMITED VS. ALEX BARTHAZALI KABENDERA CIVIL APPEAL NO. 370 OF 2019.pdf
Size:
232.77 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.71 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download

Collections

Evidence