IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA LABOUR DIVISION AT DAR ES SALAAM REVISION NO 305 OF 2010
|
|
- Asher Cole
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA LABOUR DIVISION AT DAR ES SALAAM REVISION NO 305 OF 2010 TANZANIA BUILDING WORKS LTD. APPLICANT VERSUS ALLY MGOMBA & 4 OTHERS RESPONDENTS (Original CMA/DSM/TEM/337/09) 17/09/2012 & 12/10/2012 RULING RWEYEMAMU, J:- The respondents were employed by the applicant as watchmen until they were terminated on 12/10/2009, and security sources outsourced from a specialized company instead. The respondents were dissatisfied and on 11/11/2009, they appealed the applicant s decision to the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration (CMA) on ground that termination was unfair. In the award dated 25/11/2010, the CMA arbitrator agreed with the respondents; found that their termination for operational reasons was both substantively and procedurally unfair, and ordered the applicant to reinstate them without loss of benefits. That decision displeased the applicants hence this application for its revision. Hearing of this application proceeded by way of written submission where both sides were represented by personal representatives in accordance with section 56 (b) of the Labour Institutions Act, 7/2004 read together with rule 43 (1) of the Labour Court Rules, GN 106/2007. These representatives were Mr. G. Murugaruga and Mr. S. Katerega for the applicant and respondents respectively. 1
2 In the supporting affidavit, the applicant faulted the CMA decision in essence, on grounds that the CMA arbitrator: 1. Erred in reaching a decision that termination was procedurally unfair because the respondents were not consulted despite applicant s evidence to the contrary. 2. Erred in deciding that retrenchment was unfair despite evidence that the applicant proceeded with the exercise after the respondents refused to cooperate in the consultation process. 3. Exercised jurisdiction not vested by law in that, because he arbitrated a dispute not referred to him by a party to a dispute as prescribed under section 86(7)(b) (i) of Act, of the Employment and Labour Relations Act, 6/2004 ( the ELRA). And: 4. That the award was improper for reason of being issued contrary to mandatory provisions of section 88(9) of the ELRA. In the submission, the applicant raised and argued the following additional grounds which I have resolved as follows: a. On the facts of the case, the arbitrator should have found for the applicant and awarded costs. I will not consider this ground. Issues not raised in the pleadings cannot be considered at the hearing because the respondents would not have had opportunity to prepare appropriate response. b. The application is not opposed because Mr. Ally Mgomba who swore the supplementary affidavit had no permission under the law to act in a representative capacity on behalf of 4 others. In view of my decision on the substantive aspect of the application however, I will not dwell on this aspect. 2
3 For convenience, I will consider the above grounds one at time, for each giving party s arguments in light of the undisputed facts, the arbitrator s findings and ending with my decision before moving to examine the next one. I begin with the last ground followed by ground three (3). At the outset, I dismiss the argument that the award was invalidated for reason of being issue after a period of 30 days prescribed under the mentioned provisions. I do so, because I find that in this case, quashing CMA proceedings and resultant award then ordering the process to commence afresh in the CMA as I must thereafter, will cause more injustice to both parties, such an action would not be in the interest of justice. Regarding the issue 3 on jurisdiction of the arbitrator, stemming from the manner arbitration was initiated, the applicant submitted that the award was improperly procured because no party referred the dispute to arbitration after failure of mediation, that they simply stated that they wished to proceed with arbitration which was contrary to section 86 (7) of the ELRA. The respondent s reply was that the arbitrator had powers by virtue of section 88(2) (a) of the same Act which empowers the CMA to appoint an arbitrator after mediation has failed to arbitrate the dispute agreeing with the arbitrator who said that there is no procedure requiring the parties to submit fresh application after failure of mediation. The arbitrator s decision was proper. First, if the ground was founded, the applicant should have raised it as preliminary objection before arbitration proceeded. The fact that the applicant did not, supports the arbitrator and respondent s position that there is no rule which prescribes filing of fresh application following failure of mediation. The practice has been that following failure of mediation, parties when signing Form No. 5 indicate whether they 3
4 choose to proceed with arbitration or not. Thereafter, if they have chosen arbitration, the CMA appoints an arbitrator. In this case, both parties signed F5 and indicated that they had agreed to proceed with arbitration. My decision is that, where parties have signed F5 indicating that they have chosen to proceed with arbitration and the CMA subsequently appoints an arbitrator, arbitration of such a dispute will be taken to have been properly initiated. For that reason, I dismiss ground 3 of the complaint. Ground 1 and 2 deal with the issue of substantive and procedural aspects of the respondents termination as such, I will deal with them jointly. The issues here are first whether operational reasons were proved to be valid grounds for termination and two, if so, whether fair/ prescribed procedure was followed. Let us commence with undisputed facts. The respondents were suspended on full pay pending investigations of theft incidences which had occurred at applicant s premises when the respondents were on duty as indicated in the applicant s letter dated 30/9/2009. Following that, on 5/10/2009, the applicant notified the respondents of the need to terminate them for operational requirements. In that letter, the applicants informed the respondents that following investigations, it believed that since it was not easy to assign responsibility of the theft to anyone under the existing work arrangements, it had decided to outsource security services from a specialized company with modern security equipments. In the same letter, the respondents were notified that the applicant intended to outsource security services, as a consequence their employment would be terminated on terms indicated; that the termination exercise would be carried on by 4
5 9/10/2009 and they had (7) days to each give their comments hoja kuhusiana na hatua zitakazochukuliwa in writing to the applicant. There was no response and on 12/10/2009, the respondents employment was terminated and they were paid their terminal benefits like salaries, leave, severance including certificate of service. On these facts, the arbitrator concluded that there was no proof that the respondents were terminated for operational requirements because in the termination letter, the applicant did not disclose reasons for the intended retrenchment and there was no proof that procedures of retrenchment for operational requirements prescribed under section 38 (1) (a-d) of the ELRA read together with rule 23 of the Employment and Labour Relations ( Code of Good Practice) Rules, GN 42/2007 were complied with. Put differently, the arbitrator found that the employer had failed to prove that termination was for a valid reason and followed a valid procedure. The applicant faults that conclusion submitting that in the notice letter to the respondents of 5/10/2009, it had valid reason for choosing a different security system, it had given the respondents necessary information for consultation being its intention and reason to retrench them and asked for their opinions. The respondents chose not to respond. Their reaction amounted to non-cooperation in the consultation process. That applicant submitted that under the circumstances, termination was for valid reasons and had followed mandated procedural consultation requirements. In reaction to that, the respondents agreed with the arbitrator, submitted that the applicants had instituted two different processes, investigations for disciplinary action and later retrenchment all within a short time span. It was submitted that the respondents were too confused with the suspension such that they could not react 5
6 to the notice of termination letter which followed shortly after. That the said letter had no reasons to warrant retrenchment nor did the applicant follow prescribed procedure for the process. That is, when consultation failed, the applicant did not refer the matter to mediation as prescribed under section 38(2) of the ELRA. In rejoinder, the applicant submitted that the applicant could not refer the matter to the CMA for mediation as prescribed under 38 (2) of the ELRA because there was no impasse in the consultation process rather, there was no consultation due to the respondents refusal to cooperate. As such, there was nothing to refer to mediation. The applicant repeated, referring to this court s decision in Metal Product LTD VMohamed Mwerangi & 7 Others, Revision 148/2008 holding that adequacy of consultation depends on the circumstances of each case, that, it is improper to apply provisions of section 38 in a check list fashion. After considering all the above, it is my decision that the arbitrator conclusion on the substantive and procedural fairness of the retrenchment exercise, was not a reasonable one in light of the evidence. The arbitrator said no reasons for retrenchment were given, yet reasons were well articulated in the notice letter of 5/10/2009. As regards consultation, the law puts the duty to engage in a consultation in good faith is put on both the employer and the employee. Once the employer gives notice to the employee, the duty moves to the employees to respond. If the time of notice is too short, the response could merely state so, and seek more time. The respondents in this case did neither made response nor sought for more time. My decision in the circumstances is that, where an employee refuses to cooperate in consultation evidenced by non response to notice as was the position 6
7 in this case, the employer will be taken to have complied with the procedural requirements for consultation in the retrenchment processes. In the end result this application succeeds. I find the arbitrator s conclusion that the respondents termination was substantively and procedurally unfair to have been on the evidence available, irrational. I accordingly confirm the applicant s termination decision; quash the arbitrator s award and the resultant remedies. R.M. Rweyemamu JUDGE 12/10/2012 Date: 12/10/2012 Coram: Hon. R.M. Rweyemamu, J. Applicant: For Applicant: Absent Respondent: For Respondent: Sammy Katerega Representative C.C. Josephine Mbasha COURT: This matter is for Ruling. Ruling delivered this 12/10/2012 R/A Explained. R.M. Rweyemamu JUDGE 12/10/2012 7
(Original/TAN/CMA/28/2008)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA LABOUR DIVISION AT TANGA LABOUR REVISION NO 82 OF 2010 SAFI MEDICS APPLICANT VERSUS 1. ROSE PETER 2. MGANGA MUSSA 3. RICHARD KARATA.. RESPONDENTS (Original/TAN/CMA/28/2008)
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA LABOUR DIVISION AT DAR ES SALAAM LABOUR DISPUTE NO 15 OF 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA LABOUR DIVISION AT DAR ES SALAAM LABOUR DISPUTE NO 15 OF 2010 TANZANIA PLANTATION AND AGRICUTURE WORKERS UNION... COMPLAINANT VERSUS M/S UNITRANS (T) LTD..... RESPONDENT 20/4/2011
More informationIn this application made under Rule 11 (2) (b) of the Court of. Appeal Rules, 2009, the applicant, Indian Ocean Hotels Ltd. t/a
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM (CORAM: RUTAKANGWA, J.A., MBAROUK, J.A., And MASSATI, J.A.) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 82 A OF 2010 INDIAN OCEAN HOTELS LTD. t/a GOLDEN TULIP DAR ES SALAAM
More informationPRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW : CONFLICT OF LAWS
Arbitration under the Arbitration Act 1996 Aim: To provide a clear outline of the principal issues relating to the legally binding resolution of conflict of laws disputes via arbitration under the Arbitration
More information(CORAM: NSEKELA, J.A., KILEO, J.A. And BWANA, J.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2008
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM (CORAM: NSEKELA, J.A., KILEO, J.A. And BWANA, J.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2008 AGNESS SIMBAMBILI GABBA. APPELLANT VERSUS DAVID SAMSON GABBA RESPONDENT
More informationIN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF SWAZILAND JUDGEMENT
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF SWAZILAND JUDGEMENT In the matter between:- DR BHADALA T. MAMBA CASE NO. 418/2015 APPLICANT AND CENTRAL BANK OF SWAZILAND SIKHUMBUZO SIMELANE 1 ST RESPONDENT 2 ND RESPONDENT
More informationCHAPTER 12. NEGOTIATIONS AND IMPASSE PROCEDURES; MEDIATION, FACT-FINDING, SUPER CONCILIATION, AND GRIEVANCE ARBITRATION i
CHAPTER 12. NEGOTIATIONS AND IMPASSE PROCEDURES; MEDIATION, FACT-FINDING, SUPER CONCILIATION, AND GRIEVANCE ARBITRATION i SUBCHAPTER 1. PURPOSE OF PROCEDURES 19:12-1.1 Purpose of procedures N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4.e
More informationRULING OF THE COURT. The third respondent herein, Elias K. Musiba, used to be an employee
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM (CORAM: RUTAKANGWA, J.A., MBAROUK, J.A., And MASSATI, J.A.) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 97 OF 2010 TANZANIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY LTD... APPLICANT VERSUS
More informationTHE SUMATRA (COMPLAINTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURE) RULES, 2008
THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA THE SUMATRA (COMPLAINTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURE) RULES, 2008 [GN. No. 15 OF 2008] PRINTED BYTHE GOVERNMENT PRINTER, DAR ES SALAAM-TANZANIA ANDAND THE SUMATRA (COMPLAINTS AND
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM. (CORAM: MROSO, J. A, MSOFFE, J. A. AND KAJI, J. A.) CIVIL REFERECE NO.
1 Civil Reference No 14 of 2005 Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam. Mroso, J.A, Msoffe, J.A and Kaji, J.A Philip Chumbuka VS. Masudi Ally Kasele (Appeal from the Judgement Decision of the Appeal
More informationIn the High Court of Tanzania at Mwanza the appellant and two. others were charged with murder c/s 196 of the Penal Code. It was
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT MWANZA (CORAM: SAMATTA, C.J., MSOFFE, J.A., And KAJI, J.A.) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 42 OF 2001 JUMA LYAMWIWE THE REPUBLIC VERSUS APPELLANT RESPONDENT 16/2/2005 & 28/4/2006
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not reportable Case no J 633/16 In the matter between GEORGE MAKUKAU Applicant And RAMOTSHERE MOILOA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY First Respondent THOMPSON PHAKALANE
More informationIBSA Harassment Policy
IBSA Harassment Policy 1. Title This policy is referred to as the IBSA Harassment Policy. 2. Statements Of Purpose 2.1. This policy is passed by the IBSA Executive Board pursuant to sections 2.1, 2.2.4
More informationCommercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures (Including Procedures for Large, Complex Commercial Disputes)
Commercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures (Including Procedures for Large, Complex Commercial Disputes) Rules Amended and Effective October 1, 2013 Fee Schedule Amended and Effective June 1,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM VERSUS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM ERNEST MANENO SHIJA VERSUS MAZINGA CORPORATION PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT Date of last Order: 19/09/2006 Date of Ruling: 06/11/2007 Mlay, J. Mzinga Corporation is
More informationArbitration Act CHAPTER Part I. Arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement. Introductory
Arbitration Act 1996 1996 CHAPTER 23 1 Part I Arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement Introductory 1. General principles. 2. Scope of application of provisions. 3. The seat of the arbitration.
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable Case no: JS 1505/16 In the matter between: MOQHAKA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY Applicant and FUSI JOHN MOTLOUNG SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT,
More informationFuneral Planning Authority Rules
Funeral Planning Authority Rules 1. GENERAL 1.1 Interpretation In these Rules: "Appellant" means the party serving a Disciplinary Appeal Notice in accordance with Rule 7.9.1; "Applicant" means a person
More informationIN THE FAIR COMPETITION TRIBUNAL AT DAR ES SALAAM TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO. 3 OF 2013 TANZANIA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD...APPELLANT VERSUS JUDGMENT
IN THE FAIR COMPETITION TRIBUNAL AT DAR ES SALAAM TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO. 3 OF 2013 TANZANIA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD...APPELLANT VERSUS MS. ELIZABETH KIUNSI 1 ST RESPONDENT ENERGY AND WATER UTILITIES REGULATORY
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM. MROSO, J.A., NSEKELA, J.A. And MSOFFE, J.A. CIVIL REFERENCE NO. 3 OF 2007
Citation Parties Legal Principles Discussed CIVIL REFERENCE NO. 3 OF 2007- COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM- MROSO, J.A., NSEKELA, J.A. And MSOFFE, J.A. HARUNA MPANGAOS AND OTHERS Vs. TANZANIA
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM CORAM: RAMADHANI, J. A. NSEKELA, J. A. AND KAJI, J. A. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.
1 In the Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam Civil Application No. 173 of 2004 KAJI, J.A STELLA TEMU VS TANZANIA REVENUE AUTHORITY (Application for Revenue from the judgement of the Court of Appeal
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG NUPSAW OBO NOLUTHANDO LENGS
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JR 2494/16 In the matter between: NUPSAW OBO NOLUTHANDO LENGS Applicant and GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICE SECTORAL
More informationTHE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA CIVIL DIVISION MISC. CAUSE NO. 321 OF 2013
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA CIVIL DIVISION MISC. CAUSE NO. 321 OF 2013 1. ATTORNEY GENERAL 2. HON. NYOMBI PETER ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANTS VERSUS
More informationMROSO, J.A., NSEKELA, J.A. And RUTAKANGWA, J.A.) FRANCISCA MBAKILEKI... APPLICANT VERSUS TANZANIA HARBOURS CORPORATION RESPONDENT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM (CORAM: MROSO, J.A., NSEKELA, J.A. And RUTAKANGWA, J.A.) CIVIL REFERENCE NO. 14 OF 2004 FRANCISCA MBAKILEKI. APPLICANT VERSUS TANZANIA HARBOURS CORPORATION
More informationBERMUDA STATUTORY INSTRUMENT BR 29/1984 MERCHANT SHIPPING (FORMAL INVESTIGATIONS AND INQUIRIES) RULES 1984
Laws of Bermuda Title 31 Item 16(m) BERMUDA STATUTORY INSTRUMENT BR 29/1984 MERCHANT SHIPPING (FORMAL INVESTIGATIONS AND [made under section 27 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1979 [title 31 item 16] and
More informationCASE NO: JS1034/2001. ENSEMBLE TRADING 341 (PTY) LIMITED Second Respondent JUDGMENT
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: and CASE NO: JS1034/2001 Applicant First Respondent ENSEMBLE TRADING 341 (PTY) LIMITED Second Respondent JUDGMENT FRANCIS J Introduction 1. The
More informationCitation Parties Legal Principles Discussed
1 Citation Parties Legal Principles Discussed CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20 OF 2007- COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM- MSOFFE, J.A, KAJI, J. A; and RUTAKANGWA, J. A. 1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION
More informationRESOLUTION. Resolution No. 1/2000 INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL LITIGATION
RESOLUTION Resolution No. 1/2000 INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL LITIGATION The 69 th Conference of the International Law Association, held in London, United Kingdom, 25 th 29 th July 2000: HAVING CONSIDERED
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, IN JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Reportable THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, IN JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Case no: J1773/12 In the matter between: VUSI MASHIANE and DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Applicant First Respondent
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Reportable/Not Reportable Case no: J 2591/17 In the matter between: FAIS OMBUD Applicant and MPHO RAMETSI First Respondent COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION
More informationNFA Arbitration: Resolving Customer Disputes
NFA Arbitration: Resolving Customer Disputes Contents Why arbitration? 2 What does it cost to arbitrate? 4 What is NFA Arbitration? 6 Glossary of terms 17 National Futures Association (NFA) is a self-regulatory
More informationDate of last Order. Date of Ruling
Date of last Order Date of Ruling TIMA HAJI through the services of K. MWITTAWAISSAKA ADVOCATE,has made an application by Chamber Summons under the Civil Procedure Code 1966 seeking from this court, the
More informationRelevant Excerpts of the Rules of the City of New York Title 61 - Office of Collective Bargaining Chapter 1 - Practice and Procedure
Relevant Excerpts of the Rules of the City of New York Title 61 - Office of Collective Bargaining Chapter 1 - Practice and Procedure 1-01 Definitions 1-07 Proceedings before the Board of Collective Bargaining
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG BOSAL AFRIKA (PTY) LTD
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Reportable In the matter between: Case no: JR 839/2011 BOSAL AFRIKA (PTY) LTD Applicant and NUMSA obo ITUMELENG MAWELELA First Respondent ADVOCATE PC PIO
More informationTHE STATUTES OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE ARBITRATION ACT (CHAPTER 10)
THE STATUTES OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE ARBITRATION ACT (CHAPTER 10) (Original Enactment: Act 37 of 2001) REVISED EDITION 2002 (31st July 2002) Prepared and Published by THE LAW REVISION COMMISSION UNDER
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL APPEAL NO. 36 OF 2003 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL APPEAL NO. 36 OF 2003 (From the Ruling of The Court of the Resident Magistrate at Kisutu in Civil Case No.78 of 1997 Mgetta, ISSA. H. NANGUPECHI. SRM)
More informationPLEASE NOTE Legislative Counsel Office not Table of Public Acts
c t LABOUR ACT PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to August 20, 2016. It is intended for information and reference purposes
More informationNELSON MANDELA BAY MUNICIPALITY JUDGMENT. [1] At issue in this application is whether a fixed contract of
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION PORT ELIZABETH Case No: 1479/14 In the matter between NELSON MANDELA BAY MUNICIPALITY Applicant and ISRAEL TSATSIRE Respondent JUDGMENT REVELAS
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not reportable Case no: JR 1231/12 In the matter between: PAUL REFILOE MAHAMO Applicant And CMC di RAVENNA SOUTH AFRICA
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT DENNIS PEARSON AND 14 OTHERS
1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable CASE NO: JS 1135/12 In the matter between: DENNIS PEARSON AND 14 OTHERS Applicant and TS AFRIKA CATERING
More informationIn the matter between:
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Not reportable THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Case no: JR 868/13 In the matter between: PASSENGER RAIL AGENCY OF SOUTH AFRICA APPLICANT and COMMISSION
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA 3659/98. In the matter between: NATIONAL UNION OF METALWORKERS OF SOUTH AFRICA. Applicant. and
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG Case Number: J 3659/98 In the matter between: NATIONAL UNION OF METALWORKERS OF SOUTH AFRICA Applicant and NISSAN SOUTH AFRICA MANUFACTURING (PTY)
More information1 st Applicant. 2 nd to 26 th Applicants. Respondent
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN) CASE NUMBER :J954/98 DATE:12.5.1998 In the matter of: FOOD AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION BILLY LANZAYE AND 25 OTHERS 1 st Applicant 2 nd to 26 th Applicants
More informationThis is an application for revision in terms of the provisions of
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ESSALAAM (CORAM: LUBUVA, l.a., MROSO, l.a., And MSOFFE, l.a.) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 183 OF 2005 1. ABBAS SHERALLY ] 2. MEHRUNISSA ABBAS SHERALLY ]................
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT. MICHAEL KAWALYA-KAGWA Applicant
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not reportable Case no: J 2406/16 In the matter between: MICHAEL KAWALYA-KAGWA Applicant and DEVELOPMENT BANK OF SOUTHERN AFRICA Respondent Heard:
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH JUDGMENT MHLANGANISI WELCOME MAGIJIMA
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case No: P543/13 In the matter between: MHLANGANISI WELCOME MAGIJIMA Applicant And THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,
More informationARBITRATION RULES OF THE SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE SIAC RULES (5 TH EDITION, 1 APRIL 2013)
ARBITRATION RULES OF THE SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE SIAC RULES (5 TH EDITION, 1 APRIL 2013) 1. Scope of Application and Interpretation 1.1 Where parties have agreed to refer their disputes
More informationArbitration Act 1996
Arbitration Act 1996 An Act to restate and improve the law relating to arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement; to make other provision relating to arbitration and arbitration awards; and for
More informationAAA Commercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures (Including Procedures for Large, Complex, Commercial Disputes)
APPENDIX 4 AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures (Including Procedures for Large, Complex, Commercial Disputes) Commercial Mediation Procedures M-1. Agreement of Parties Whenever, by
More informationStreamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures
RESOLUTIONS, LLC s GUIDE TO DISPUTE RESOLUTION Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures 1. Scope of Rules The RESOLUTIONS, LLC Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures ("Rules") govern binding
More informationCHAPTER 4 THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT. Arrangement of Sections.
CHAPTER 4 THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT. Arrangement of Sections. Section 1. Application. 2. Interpretation. PART I PRELIMINARY. PART II ARBITRATION. 3. Form of arbitration agreement. 4. Waiver
More informationOBO RICHARD CHARLES MATOLA MBOMBELA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable Case No: J2566/14 In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN MUNICIPAL WORKERS UNION OBO RICHARD CHARLES MATOLA Applicant
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OFT AN ZAN IA (COMMERCIAL DIVTSfON) AT DAR ES SALAAM
IN THE HIGH COURT OFT AN ZAN IA (COMMERCIAL DIVTSfON) AT DAR ES SALAAM MISC COMMERCIAL CAUSE NO 70 OF 2017 (ARISING FROM COMMERCIAL CASE NO. 127 OF 2016) BETWEEN MAN TRAC T ANZANTA LIMITED --------------------------------------------A
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. Case CCT 3/03 VOLKSWAGEN OF SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD JUDGMENT
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT 3/03 XINWA and 1335 OTHERS Applicants versus VOLKSWAGEN OF SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD Respondent Decided on : 4 April 2003 JUDGMENT THE COURT: [1] The applicants
More informationSINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE (SIAC)
GUIDE TO INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION IN SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE (SIAC) Written By S. Ravi Shankar Advocate on Record - Supreme Court of India National President of Arbitration Bar of India
More informationDISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE FOR TEACHERS NOTES OF GUIDANCE FOR RELEVANT BODIES
DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE FOR TEACHERS NOTES OF GUIDANCE FOR RELEVANT BODIES 1. Advice and Guidance 1.1 It is strongly recommended that the advice and guidance of the Employing Authority be sought when any
More informationTRADEMARK POST-DELEGATION DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURE (TRADEMARK PDDRP) 4 JUNE 2012
TRADEMARK POST-DELEGATION DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURE (TRADEMARK PDDRP) 4 JUNE 2012 1. Parties to the Dispute The parties to the dispute will be the trademark holder and the gtld registry operator. ICANN
More informationAT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL APPEAL NO. 145 OF 2002 MATHEW MBATA...APPLICANT VERSUS DENIS CATHELESS...RESPONDENT RULING
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL APPEAL NO. 145 OF 2002 MATHEW MBATA...APPLICANT VERSUS DENIS CATHELESS...RESPONDENT Date of last order - 29/2/2008 Date of Ruling - 31/03/2008 RULING
More informationTRADE UNION. The Trade Union Act. Repealed by Chapter S-15.1 of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 2013 (effective April 29, 2014)
1 TRADE UNION c. T-17 The Trade Union Act Repealed by Chapter S-15.1 of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 2013 (effective April 29, 2014) Formerly Chapter T-17 of The Revised Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1978
More informationNC General Statutes - Chapter 7A Article 16 1
Article 16. Magistrates. 7A-170. Nature of office and oath; age limit for service. (a) A magistrate is an officer of the district court. Before entering upon the duties of his office, a magistrate shall
More informationTHE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA THE TAX REVENUE APPEALS ACT CHAPTER 408 REVISED EDITION 2006
THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA THE TAX REVENUE APPEALS ACT CHAPTER 408 REVISED EDITION 2006 This edition of the Tax Revenue Appeals Act, Cap. 408 incorporates all amendments up to 30th November, 2006
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable In the matter between: Case no: JR 815/15 DUNCANMEC (PTY) LTD Applicant and WILLIAM, ITUMELENG N.O THE METAL AND ENGINEERING INDUSTRY BARGAINING
More information2009 No (L. 20) TRIBUNALS AND INQUIRIES
S T A T U T O R Y I N S T R U M E N T S 2009 No. 1976 (L. 20) TRIBUNALS AND INQUIRIES The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 Made - - - - 16th July 2009 Laid
More informationRules for the conduct of proceedings before the CCMA. Act. Published under. GN R1448 in GG of 10 October as amended by
Rules for the conduct of proceedings before the CCMA Act Published under GN R1448 in GG 25515 of 10 October 2003 as amended by GN R1512 in GG 25607 of 17 October 2003 GN R1748 of 2003 in GG 25797 of 5
More informationNC General Statutes - Chapter 7A Article 16 1
Article 16. Magistrates. 7A-170. Nature of office and oath; age limit for service. (a) A magistrate is an officer of the district court. Before entering upon the duties of his office, a magistrate shall
More informationARBITRATION AWARD. Panellist: Bella Goldman Case No.: PSHS419-11/12 and PHSS832-11/12 Date of Award: 17 May In the ARBITRATION between:
ARBITRATION AWARD Panellist: Bella Goldman Case No.: PSHS419-11/12 and PHSS832-11/12 Date of Award: 17 May 2012 In the ARBITRATION between: Errol Pierre Visser (Applicant) And Department of Health - Western
More informationJAMS International Arbitration Rules & Procedures
JAMS International Arbitration Rules & Procedures Effective September 1, 2016 JAMS INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION RULES JAMS International and JAMS provide arbitration and mediation services from Resolution
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG) CEMENTATION MINING Applicant
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG) CASE NO. JR 1644/06 In the matter between: CEMENTATION MINING Applicant And COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION 1 ST Respondent
More information2yh August, Supplement No THE BASIC RIGHTS AND DUTIES ENFORCEMENT (CAP.
ISSN 0856-034X Supplement No. 34 SUBSIDIARY LEGISLATION 2yh August, 2014 to the Gazette of the United Republic of Tanzania No. 35 Vol 95 dated 2cjh August, 2014 Printed by the Government Printer, Dar es
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG NATIONAL UNION OF MINEWORKERS
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not reportable Case no: J 1607/17 NATIONAL UNION OF MINEWORKERS Applicant and PETRA DIAMONDS t/a CULLINAN DIAMOND MINE (PTY) LTD Respondent Heard: 2 August
More informationDISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE FOR TEACHERS, INCLUDING PRINCIPALS AND VICE-PRINCIPALS, IN GRANT AIDED SCHOOLS WITH FULLY DELEGATED BUDGETS
DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE FOR TEACHERS, INCLUDING PRINCIPALS AND VICE-PRINCIPALS, IN GRANT AIDED SCHOOLS WITH FULLY DELEGATED BUDGETS 1. PURPOSE AND PRINCIPLES 1.1 The procedure is concerned with supporting
More informationAAA Employment Arbitration Flowchart
AAA Employment Arbitration Flowchart (AAA Employment Arbitration Rules) For detailed information on arbitration under the AAA employment rules, see Practice Note, AAA Employment Arbitration: A Step-by-Step
More informationPART II ESTABLISHMENT 3. Establishment of Tanganyika Law Society. 4. Objects. 5. Dissolution and vesting of assets of Former Society.
CHAPTER 307 THE TANGANYIKA LAW SOCIETY ACT [PRINCIPAL LEGISLATION] ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Section. Title PART I PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation. PART II ESTABLISHMENT 3. Establishment
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA Case number : 521/06 Reportable In the matter between : BODY CORPORATE OF GREENACRES APPELLANT and GREENACRES UNIT 17 CC GREENACRES UNIT 18 CC FIRST RESPONDENT
More informationBy Laws of Legacy Solar Wisconsin Cooperative
By Laws of Legacy Solar Wisconsin Cooperative ARTICLE I. THE COOPERATIVE. Section 1.1. Authority. Legacy Solar Cooperative (the "Cooperative") is a nonstock cooperative organized under the laws of the
More informationConsolidated text PROJET DE LOI ENTITLED. The Arbitration (Guernsey) Law, 2016 * [CONSOLIDATED TEXT] NOTE
PROJET DE LOI ENTITLED The Arbitration (Guernsey) Law, 2016 * [CONSOLIDATED TEXT] NOTE This consolidated version of the enactment incorporates all amendments listed in the footnote below. It has been prepared
More informationDR. JANE MUTASA versus TELECEL INTERNATIONAL and TELECEL ZIMBABWE (PRIVATE) LIMITED
1 DR. JANE MUTASA versus TELECEL INTERNATIONAL and TELECEL ZIMBABWE (PRIVATE) LIMITED HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE MATHONSI J HARARE, 26 June 2014 and 2 July 2014 Opposed application C Venturas, for the applicant
More informationOMBUDSMAN BILL, 2017
Arrangement of Sections Section PART I - PRELIMINARY 3 1. Short title...3 2. Interpretation...3 3. Application of Act...4 PART II OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN 5 ESTABLISHMENT AND FUNCTIONS OF OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN
More informationREGISTRY RESTRICTIONS DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURE (RRDRP) 1 REVISED - NOVEMBER 2010
REGISTRY RESTRICTIONS DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURE (RRDRP) 1 REVISED - NOVEMBER 2010 1. Parties to the Dispute The parties to the dispute will be the harmed organization or individual and the gtld registry
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (DAR ES SALAAM DISTRICT REGISTRY) AT DAR ES SALAAM
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (DAR ES SALAAM DISTRICT REGISTRY) AT DAR ES SALAAM IN THE MATTER OF THE LAW REFORM (FATAL ACCIDENTS AND MISC. PROVISIONS) ORDINANCE CAP.360 AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION
More information"collective agreement" means an agreement as to industrial matters;
Page 1 of 36 Short title 1. This Act may be cited as the Industrial Relations Act. Interpretation 2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires "award" means an award made by a Court; "collective
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV 2009-02708 BETWEEN SYDNEY ORR APPLICANT AND THE POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION DEFENDANT Before the Honourable Mr. Justice A. des Vignes
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT In the matter between: Case No: JR 730/12 Not Reportable DUNYISWA MAQUNGO Applicant andand LUVUYO QINA N.O First Respondent
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE AD of an application for leave to apply for Judicial Review NORMAN CHARLES RODRIGUEZ
CLAIM NO 275 OF 2014 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE AD 2014 IN THE MATTER of an application for leave to apply for Judicial Review AND IN THE MATTER of section 13 of the Belize City Council Act, Cap 85
More informationIN THE PUBLIC PROCUREMENT APPEALS AUTHORITY AT DAR ES SALAAM CONSOLIDATED APPEAL CASES NO. 42 & 43 OF BETWEEN
IN THE PUBLIC PROCUREMENT APPEALS AUTHORITY AT DAR ES SALAAM CONSOLIDATED APPEAL CASES NO. 42 & 43 OF 2014-15. BETWEEN M/S QUANTUM POWER E.A LIMITED. 1 ST APPELLANT M/S KOCH ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION LDC/PROMAN
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT KHULULEKILE LAWRENCE MCHUBA PASSENGER RAIL AGENCY OF SOUTH AFRICA
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: J 392/14 In the matter between KHULULEKILE LAWRENCE MCHUBA Applicant and PASSENGER RAIL AGENCY
More informationIn the matter between:
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG, PRETORIA) Case No.: 7669/2012 (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: Y^/NO (3) REVISED. Zo/L'-/2^- t'z- D ATE / /
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2015
CLAIM No. 292 of 2014 BETWEEN: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2015 IN THE MATTER OF Section 113 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, Chapter 91 of the Laws of Belize AND IN THE MATTER OF an Application
More informationPART 4221 ARBITRATION OF DIS- PUTES IN MULTIEMPLOYER PLANS
4220.4 has been assigned, that fact must be indicated. (3) A copy of the amendment as adopted, including its proposed effective date. (4) A copy of the most recent actuarial valuation of the plan. (5)
More informationIMPUTATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
CLIENT-LAWYER RELATIONSHIP: IMPUTATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST MRPC 1.10 1 RULE 1.10 IMPUTATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST: GENERAL RULE (a) While lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly
More informationNational Patent Board Non-Binding Arbitration Rules TABLE OF CONTENTS
National Patent Board Non-Binding Arbitration Rules Rules Amended and Effective June 1, 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS Important Notice...3 Introduction...3 Standard Clause...3 Submission Agreement...3 Administrative
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Case no: JR 2630/12 In the matter between: NUM obo MOGASHOA Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND
More informationIN THE EAST AFRICAN COURT OF JUSTICE AT ARUSHA-1 ST INSTANCE DIVISION
IN THE EAST AFRICAN COURT OF JUSTICE AT ARUSHA-1 ST INSTANCE DIVISION (Coram: Johnston Busingye, P.J; Mary Stella Arach-Amoko, DPJ; John Mkwawa, J) APPLICATION NO. 6 OF 2011 [Arising from Reference No.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) Date: 21/08/2008 Case No: 21803/2004 UNREPORTABLE In the case between: RIENA CHARLES Applicant And PREMIER OF THE PROVINCE OF MPULALANGA
More informationSAMWU IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
SAMWU IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JR 2504/12 In the matter between: NORTHAM PLATINUM LTD Applicant and THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION
More informationSEVENTY-SEVENTH SESSION
Registry's translation, the French text alone being authoritative. SEVENTY-SEVENTH SESSION In re DEMONET Judgment 1346 THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Considering the complaint filed by Mr. Jacques Denis
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (DAR ES SALAAM DISTRICT REGISTRY) JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA (DAR ES SALAAM DISTRICT REGISTRY) JUDGMENT the demolition Notice cis 12(2) and 64 of the township Rules Cap. 101. district and Dar es Salaam Region, erecting a Dwelling house
More informationRULING OF THE COURT. The appellant, John s/o Ayoub was charged in the District. Court of Tunduru in Ruvuma Region with two economic offences;
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT IRINGA (CORAM: MBAROUK, J.A., MMILLA,J.A., And MWARIJA,J.A.) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 196 OF 2014 JOHN IKLAND @ AYOUB APPELLANT VERSUS THE REPUBLIC. RESPONDENT (Appeal
More informationDepartment of Labor Division of Industrial Affairs Office of Anti-Discrimination Statutory Authority: 19 Delaware Code, Sections 712(a)(2) and 728
Department of Labor Division of Industrial Affairs Office of Anti-Discrimination Statutory Authority: 19 Delaware Code, Sections 712(a)(2) and 728 1.0 General Provisions 1.1 Purpose and scope. 1.1.1 The
More informationLegal Supplement Part C to the Trinidad and Tobago Gazette, Vol. 40, No. 12, 22nd January,
Legal Supplement Part C to the Trinidad and Tobago Gazette, Vol. 40, No. 12, 22nd January, 2001 000 No. 3 of 2001 First Session Sixth Parliament Republic of Trinidad and Tobago HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
More information