Gisela Ngoo VS TaTEDO
Gisela Ngoo VS TaTEDO
Gisela Ngoo VS TaTEDO
LABOUR DIVISION
AT PAR ES SALAAM
BETWEEN
AND
JUDGMENT
B. E. K. Mqanqa, J.
was employed as Senior Professional Manager. The said five years fixed
contract was expiring on 31st December 2015. Before expiry of the agreed
i
period, in 2013, due to operational requirement, applicant retrenched some
February 2013, E.N. Sawe, the Executive Director of the applicant wrote a
that her employment was terminated with effect from February 2013.
salaries (May-December 2012), annual leave (2012), NSSF savings for the
past two years (2011 and 2012), gratuity for three years (2010, 2011,
within the period of three years upon the organization getting funds. It
happened that applicant did not honour the agreement as a result, on 13th
May 2016, respondent filed the dispute at CMA claiming to be paid TZS
173,748,858/=. Being aware that she was out of time, respondent filed the
to pay (i) TZS 48,000,000/= being salary arrears for May to December
2012, (ii) TZS 21,600,000/= being gratuity, (iii) TZS 6,461,532/= being
2
annual leave pay and TZS 4,846,149/= being severance pay, all amounting
toTZS 80,907,681/=.
Applicant was aggrieved by the said award as a result, she filed this
application seeking the court to revise it. In his affidavit in support of the
application, Samson Lusumo, learned counsel for the applicant, raised four
grounds, namely: -
1. That the arbitrator erred in law and fact when she granted leave pay while
2. That the arbitrator erred in law and fact when she computed severance
allowance wrongly.
3. That the arbitrator erred in law and fact by relying on a letter written by the
statutory payment.
When the application was called for hearing, Mr. Samson Lusumo,
learned counsel appeared and argued for and on behalf of the applicant
while Mr. Aidan Kitare, learned counsel, appeared, and argued for and on
On the 1st ground, Mr. Lusumo submitted that the arbitrator erred in
law and fact when she granted one month leave pay while respondent was
3
not entitled. He submitted that, prior to termination, respondent did not
pray for leave pay. Counsel submitted that respondent testified that she
did not pray for annual leave. But during submissions, counsel for the
applicant conceded that applicant did not inform the respondent that she is
[Cap. 366 RE. 2019]. Counsel submitted that; respondent was employed
under a fixed term contract of five (5) years expiring on 31st December
2013. Counsel went on that; respondent's salary was TZS 6,000,000/= and
that she was awarded TZS 4,846,149/= as severance pay. Counsel for the
4
On 3rd ground namely that; the arbitrator erred to rely on a letter
the applicant submitted that the said letter was signed by the Executive
has some outstanding. In the 4th ground, counsel for the applicants
submitted that the arbitrator did not show the basis of awarding the
AP4), it was agreed by the parties that respondent shall be paid leave.
Therefore, there was no need of filling the form or applying for leave.
Counsel went on that no evidence was adduced at CMA to the effect that
respondent was supposed to fill leave form but did not. Counsel argued
He argued that respondent was not offered option to work with Sister
5
Company of the applicant and that there is no evidence to that effect.
Counsel for the respondent submitted further that Section 42(3) Cap. 366
On the 3rd ground, counsel for the respondent submitted that the
arbitrator did not error to rely on the letter Exhibit AP4 written by the
applicant. He went on that, the arbitrator relied on Exhibit AP4 and the
contract between the parties because what was agreed in the said letter
accordance with what the parties had agreed on earlier. Counsel summed
6
applicant and that the total amount awarded to the respondent has no
evidence in the CMA record. As pointed out herein above, on 19th February
25th February 2013 (exh. AP4) after discussion with the respondent,
applicant agreed to pay the respondent some of the entitlements that are
part: -
... Based on your letter and the discussions conducted in the office of
the Executive Director on 19h February 2013 from 12.00 to 7.30 noon. We
have agreed with you that you will not continue working with TaTEDO with
effect from February 2013. We understand that you still have some pending
7
our organization, your outstanding benefits including salaries (may- December
2012), annual !eave(2012), NSSF savings for the past two years (2011 and
2012),gratuities for three years (2010, 2011 and 2012), and severance
allowance will be paid to you either on installment (as shall be agreed with
you) or in lump sum with (sic) the period of three years upon the
We thank you for working with TaTEDO and accepting the ongoing
Yours faithfully.
Sgd
E.N. Sawe
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR"
leave in the 1st ground of the revision lacks supports. The same applies to
CMA record to support that submission. More so, parties agreed in exhibit
AP4 as to what should be paid. I therefore find that the 2nd ground also
lacks merit.
Counsel for the applicant criticized the arbitrator that she relied on
the letter written by the respondent instead of the contract. Counsel for the
8
applicant and included what the parties agreed in the contract. This ground
above. The said letter (exhibit AP4) was written by the applicant, and it is
fault the arbitrator. So longer the parties agreed in the said exhibit, they
In the 4th ground, the applicant criticized the arbitrator that the
award of TZS 80,907,681/= is excessive and that arbitrator did not show
the basis of calculations. With due respect to counsel for the applicant, I
have read the award and find that the said amount was justified, and
For the foregoing, I hereby uphold the CMA award and dismiss this
/ B. E. K. Mganga
JUDGE