Civil Reference No. 7 of 2004
Edson Mwamtobe and Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA) each filed separate applications for revision before the Labour Division of the High Court, both challenging the same CMA arbitral award (CMA/DSM/ILA/525/12(389)). Mwamtobe's application was registered as Revision No. 74 of 2014 (against TRA) and TRA's as Revision No. 81 of 2014 (against Mwamtobe). Because the two applications arose from the same award and involved the same parties, the Court consolidated them for a single ruling. Before the merits could be heard, each side raised preliminary objections against the other's application, primarily attacking the citation of enabling provisions, the competence of the supporting affidavits, and, in TRA's application, the doctrine of res-subjudice.
(1) Whether an application for revision citing a non-existent or wrong statutory provision (the 'Employment and Labour Institution Act') is rendered incompetent. (2) Whether the supporting affidavits were incurably defective for containing argumentative statements and grounds of appeal rather than material facts, contrary to Rule 24(3)(b) and (c) of the Labour Court Rules, GN No. 106 of 2007. (3) Whether Revision No. 74 of 2014 was barred by res-subjudice given the pendency of Revision No. 81 of 2014 between the same parties over the same award. (4) Whether the chamber summons was fatally defective for lack of the Registrar's signature. (5) Whether the affidavit's jurat conformed to the format prescribed under the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act, Cap. 34.
TRA (applicant in Revision 81/2014) argued that Sections 94(1) and 91(c) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act conferred jurisdiction and a right to seek revision, that res-subjudice did not apply because it had no knowledge of Mwamtobe's pending application when it filed its own, and that its affidavit complied with Rule 24(3) by stating material facts, legal issues and relief sought. Mwamtobe (respondent in 81/2014) contended that citing the non-existent 'Employment and Labour Institution Act' and mis-citing provisions rendered the application incompetent, relying on Court of Appeal authorities (Marcky Mhango; National Bank of Commerce v. Sadrudin Meghji; China Henan International Co-operation v. Salvanda K.A. Rwegesira) holding that wrong or unknown citations vitiate applications; he further argued the affidavit was incurably defective for pleading conclusions and grounds of appeal (paragraphs 5 and 6), and that the chamber summons lacked the Registrar's signature (citing TRA v. Msigwa Mwalungu). In Revision 74/2014, Mwamtobe (as applicant) argued that the erroneous citation was a mere slip of the pen causing no injustice, urged the Court to disregard the cases cited against him for lacking judicial signatures, and relied on the Mukisa Biscuit test (as applied in Tanzania Cigarette Company v. Burundi Tobacco Co.) that preliminary objections must be pure points of law. TRA (respondent in 74/2014) maintained that both revisions concerned the legality of the same award between the same parties, rendering Mwamtobe's application res-subjudice, and that the supporting affidavit (deposed by Samia Nyakunga) improperly contained argumentative conclusions instead of material facts.
The Court found that the affidavit supporting the applications did not conform to the format for a jurat prescribed in the Schedule to the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act, Cap. 34 R.E. 2002; the deponent had improvised his own wording ('Sworn and delivered by the said William...') instead of the statutorily required form, rendering the affidavit defective. On this and the totality of the objections raised, the Court held that both consolidated applications for revision—Revision No. 74 of 2014 (Edson Mwamtobe v. Tanzania Revenue Authority) and Revision No. 81 of 2014 (Tanzania Revenue Authority v. Edson Mwamtobe)—were incompetent. Both applications were struck out, and the Court declined to grant automatic leave to refile, cautioning against turning 'the law into an ass and a scare crow' or the Labour Court into a 'casino' for repeated attempts.
The judgment underscores the strict formal requirements attaching to affidavits and citations in labour court applications for revision: affidavits must adhere to the statutorily prescribed jurat format under the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act and must contain only material facts, not argumentative conclusions or grounds of appeal, in compliance with Rule 24(3) of the Labour Court Rules. It reaffirms the established principle, drawn from Court of Appeal precedent, that citing a wrong or non-existent statutory provision can render an application incompetent. The case also illustrates the Labour Court's practice of consolidating related revisions arising from the same award and the same parties, and demonstrates judicial reluctance to grant automatic leave to refile struck-out applications, signalling an emphasis on procedural discipline and finality in labour litigation.
Speak directly with our advocates. We turn precedent into actionable advice for your matter.