Ahmed Mohamed v. Tanganyika Clearing & Forwarding House Ltd., Misc. Civ. App. 2-DSM-71, 30/8/72.

Ahmed Mohamed v. Tanganyika Clearing & Forwarding House Ltd., Misc. Civ. App. 2-DSM-71, 30/8/72.

            SAUDI, C. J. – This an appeal against the ruling of the learned Resident Magistrate of Dar es Salaam dismissing the claim of the appellant against the respondents for Shs. 8,910/= comprising arrears of wages, severance allowance any payment of one mother’s wages in lieu of notice of dismissal. The ruling seems to be based on two grounds: firstly that the court had no jurisdiction In the matter by virtue of S. 28 of the Security of Employment Act, Cap. 574 of the Laws of Tanzania and secondly that the claim was res judicata by reason of the fact that it had been adjudicated upon by the Dar es Salaam Conciliation Board on 28^th February, 1969 under. S. 24 of the Security of Employment Act.

            Mr. Versi who appeared for the respondents supported the ruling of the learned Resident Magistrate and added that the law was clear on his matter in that issues of summary dismissal are governed by S. 28 of the Security of Employment Act which specifically ousts the jurisdiction of all Courts and leaves such matters in the hands of Conciliation Boards. Section 28 provides that : “No suit or other civil proceeding (other than proceedings to enforce a decision of the Minister or the Board on  a reference under this Paper) shall be entertained in any civil court with regard to the summary dismissal or proposed summary dismissal, or a deduction by way of a disciplinary penalty from the wages, of an employee.” In Kitundu Sisal Estate v. Shingo and others (197)) E.A. 557 a similar issue arose and it was held that the Court had no jurisdiction.

            Mr. Cenge who appeared for the appellant agreed that in so far as the issue of summary dismissal is concerned the Court has no jurisdiction. He contended however that there

Were other aspects of the case e.g. the question of arrears of wages, payment of less than the minimum wages and severance allowances, which were outside the four walls of S. 28 of the Security of Employment Act and on these other matters he asked the Court to reconsider the claim of the appellant.

            At the hearing of this appeal questioned the appellant and he stated that he was awaiting payment of the total sum of Shs. 9,000/= from the respondents. This sum must certainly include arrears of wages, the difference of the wages paid and the minimum wage and severance allowances as the claim put forward on his behalf by the Labour Office totaled Shs. 8,910/= for all these aspects.

            I therefore see no merit in this appeal and I dismiss it. Following the decision in the case of Kitundu I would direct that each party should bear its own costs.