By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

considered it wrongful and instituted a trade dispute in the industrial court in 1997 atTabora against the company. At the conclusion of the proceeding the action wasdismissed. He felt aggrieved by the decision but he was apprised that no appeal could lieagainst it in view of the legal impediment expressed in section 27 (10) of the industrialcourt o Tanzania Act 1968 as amended by Act No.3 of 1990.Section 27 (10) provides that every award and decision o the industrial courtshall be final and not liable to be challenged reviewed, questioned or called in any courtsave on the ground of lack of jurisdiction in which case the matter shall be heard anddetermined by full bench of the high court. In his pleadings the plaintiff has averred thatthis section is at odd with the provision of article 13 (6) (a) of the constitution.Article 13 (6) (a) provide that “every person shall, when his might’s and obligations arebeing determined be entitled to a fair hearing by the court of law or other body concernedand be guaranteed the right of appeal or another legal courtIt may be observed that this constitution provision was already in place and force asWhen section 27 (10) was enacted.As indicated, the plaintiff has come to this court to question the legality of the section, tourge upon us that the provision purports to take away the right conferred on him byArticles 13 (6)(a), and to seek a declaration that the section, to the extent that it isinconsistent with the constitutional provision, is unconstitutional and therefore null andvoid. No doubt, as foretasted, it is really imperative for us to handle this matter withextreme wariness for in principle that is precisely as it must be.No question whatever that to declare a provision of a statute unconstitutional and invalidis invariably a matter of great moment a fortiori where, as in the presents case, theconstitutional provision under reference has preceded the impugned statutory provision inpoint of time.The argument put forward by Dr. Tenga on behalf of the plaintiff is that since section 27(10) must be construed to mean what it says, namely, that a court or any other authority isprecluded from inquiring into the legality and propriety of any decision of the IndustrialCourt save for matters of lack of jurisdiction, therefore, factual errors or other errors inlaw fallen into by the Industrial Court are not liable so be questioned or challenged beforeany such form, Mr,Salula for the respondents meets this argument by contending thatinasmuch as section 27 (10) allows a person to go to the High Court it cannot be said tocontravene Article 13 (6) (a) and we cannot help wondering whether this is not anevasive answer.The construction put on section 27(10) by Dr. Henga is in our view the true andreasonable one...This provision pares away the right guaranteed by the Article and to allintents and supposes such is exactly the intendment. Mr Salula has not provided anyeffective rejoinder, and it seems to us that he has not addressed himself to the real issue.138