By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

The present appellants urged a number of grounds to counter Tanzania’s assertions.The main ones wee that the purported terminations were void abnitio because therehad been no prior consultation with Juwata Field Braches before the decision ofdeclaring the workers redundant. The present appellants protested against theterminations and approached the Labour commissioner who in torn enquired with theJuwata Secretary General, which set in motion the other steps which followed. Theappellants further contended that the respondents had in any event unduly delayed inasking the court to exercise its discretion and granting an order of certiorari.In issuing the order for certiorari the learned High Court judge was satisfied that,among other things:(1) There was no trade dispute. The issue of reducing the number of workers andbeen amicably “settled or compromised between Tazara the employer, theapplicants in this matter and Juwata. Juwata was fully involved in this”.…”Juwata as a trade union had been sufficiently involved at various stagespertaining to the redundancy issue of Tazara employees, some of whom were therespondents”. Specifically the learded judge observed, in the course of hisjudgment:“……… I am satisfied and find it as a fact that by the time the matter was referred to theMinister, such matter had already been determined and duly settled. The determinationand settlement on the issue had been effected between Juwata on behalf of theemployees, the respondents and Tazara, the employer, the applicants. There was no moredispute in existence.The learned judge said he appreciated the provision of section 6 (1) (g) of the security ofEmployment Act, which provides:6(1) (g) the function of the field branch, and in relation to the business for which it isestablished, is to consult with the any join agreement on redundancies.It was the learned judge’s view however, that in the present case the redundancies did notbecome impending until the council of Ministers had decided on the redundancies. It willhere be recalled that the Tribunal and the Minister were of a different view. They were ofthe view that once super Mac (Super Management and Administration Committee) feltthe necessity of reducing the number of workers the employer should have consulted withJuwata Field branches before making recommendations to the Board of Directors (whichin turn took the recommendations to the Council of Ministers) it was basically becauseof the foregoing that the learned High Court Judge issued the order of certiorari quashingand setting aside the Minister’s order.Prof. Shivji made a number of spirited submissions attacking the learned judge’s decisionand urging us to reverse the High court ruling. We are most grateful to both learnedcounsel for their obvious industry in separate the grain from the chaff and utilize onlysuch inputs as we find necessary and enough for the disposal of the matters before us.116