By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

jurisdiction to try the suit, by virtue of section 28 of the Security of employmentAct. They further contended, successfully pursued the preliminary point and thesuit was thrown out on that score. The appellant has now come to this court andis represented by Mr. Lakha, Learned Advocate is in the high Court, Mr. Uzandaappered for the respondent company before us.We think we should set out in full section 28 of the Security of Employment Act. Itprovides.“28 (1) No suit or other civil proceeding (other than proceedings to enforce adecision of the Minister or entertained in any civil court with regard to thesummary dismissal or proposed summary dismissal, or a deduction by way of adisciplinary penalty from the wages, of an employee.(2) In this section, “civil proceeding” includes a cross suit or counterclaim, any setoff and any civil proceeding under Part X1 of the Employment Ordinance”.The Learned trial judge expressed the view that the above –quoted sectionimplied that the Minister’s decision cannot be questioned in a ‘suit’ like the onefiled by the appellant. The only recourse open was to proceed by way of certiorariand Mandamus. We wish first to say, as we clearly said in Civil Appeal No. 15 of1981, PATMAN GARMENTS INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. TANZANIAMANUFACTURIES LIMITED, wherein an act by the Minister for Lands wasquestioned in a court of law, that the party dissatisfied need not necessarly520