Court of Appeal stays order to pay 400m/- to ex-employee
The Court of Appeal has stayed the enforcement of a decree requiring an information technology services provider company, Cats Tanzania Limited, to pay about 400m/- to their former senior employee, Savio Fernandes, for illegal termination of his employment.
Justices Bernard Luanda, Kipenka Mussa and Richard Mziray ruled in favour of the local company after granting its application for stay of execution of the High Court decision dated March 22, 2016, regarding the matter.
They noted that Cats Company Limited, the applicant, gave a form undertaking in an affidavit that she was prepared to give security for the due performance of the decree, thus, sufficiently meeting the condition to give security before the court granting such application.
“In the end result, we are of the settled view that the interests of justice will be met if we allow the application subject to giving security, by way of a bank guarantee, a sum of commensurate to the decretal amount with 21 days from the date of this ruling,” the justices ordered.
According to the justices, they were not in difficulty to find that a notice of appeal has been lodged to challenge the decision of the High Court and the applicant has demonstrated good cause for her quest that substantial loss may result to her in the event the decree is executed.
Savio Fernandes, the respondent in the matter, was an employee with the applicant until February 2010 when his services were allegedly terminated.
The respondent was aggrieved and instituted a labour dispute in the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration (CMA). Upon being summoned, the applicant defaulted appearance.
The CMA heard the respondent exparte and on June 24, 2014, it granted him an arbitral award typo the tune of 178,100 US dollars, plus unpaid salaries amounting to 1.5m/-. Discontented by the award, the applicant re-approached the CMA pleading with it to set it aside.
Nonetheless, the application was refused and dismissed on account that the applicant did not assign good cause for her non-appearance at the hearing of the arbitration proceedings. Undaunted, the applicant filed revision proceedings before the High Court’s Labour Division where she sought orders to call for and revise the CMA award.
In a brief judgment pronounced on March 22, 2016, the High Court declined the applicant’s invitation for lacking jurisdiction to entertain the quest.
As it were, the court took the position that the only viable recourse open for the applicant was for her to first challenge the CMA decision given on August 25, 2014 over refusal to set aside the award in question. Therefore, the revision proceedings were adjudged prematurely.