By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

that the proceedings before the Tribunal were ultra vires so he quashed the Minister’sorder based on them and set it aside.The appellants are now appealing to this court, and Prof. Shivji of the university of Dar esSalaam Legal Aid committee, who has represented them all along, is appearing them. Mr.Tarimo continues to represent the respondent. That, in brief, is the background to thisappeal.Before going into the substance of the appeal we wish to remark that we wereinconvenience by the record furnished to us as which was of the typed record a wholepage of the original record is left out, which makes it appear that only Prof. Shvji, and notMr. Tarimo, said anything at all before Maina, J. on 2 nd March, 1985. Then at page 62nearly ten pages of the original record are omitted. Page 74 shows that leave was grantedto appeal to the court of Appeal against Lubuva, J.’s ruling while the ruling itself startsform page 75. we wish to urge Prof. Shivji, the learned advocate for the appellants toexercise greater care when certifying records and we would respectfully draw hisattention to the rules of the court of Appeal regarding this matter.To come back to the appeal itself now.In a lengthy Memorandum of Appeal the appellants urged several grounds. So as toappreciate the really momentous ones it is necessary to support of its prayer for an orderof certiorari, as well the findings on which the learned judge based himself in granting theprayer. The present respondent’s main grounds were as follows:(1) There was no Trade Dispute in existence when the Permanent Labour Tribunaland the purported inquiry offended the provisions of section 9A(1) for the Act.The said section 9A(1) reads:Subject to subsection (2) (which is irrelevant here) where any trade dispute exists oris apprehended, the Labour Commissioner may inquire into the cause andcircumstances of the trade dispute to the Tribunal and the Tribunal shall inquire intothe matters referred to it and report on them to the Minister.(ii) The inquiry on which the Minister relied on was in any case null because theproceedings were conducted without the authority and or knowledge or Juwata. Insuch inquiry proceedings the employees must be represented by Juwata which is anecessary party to any such proceedings.(iii) There must be, and here there was not, a report from the Juwata SecretaryGeneral on which the Labour Commissioner could have initiated the inquiry.(iv) the Minister’s order and decision breached the rules of natural justice in thatTazara were not given an opportunity to be heard before the minister made the saiddecisions and order against them.115