Stanbic Bank Tanzania Limited has lost a bid to challenge payments of over 200m/- as compensation to their former Chief Legal Counsel Solomoni Sioi for allegedly wrongful termination of his employment serves.
This follows the decision of the Court of Appeal to “strikeout” with costs an application for stay of execution of a decree of the High Court’s Labour Division at Dar es Salaam regarding the employment dispute. Justices Mbarouk Mbarouk, Augustine Mwarija and Sivangilwa Mwangesi ruled in favour of Sioi, the respondent, after upholding a ground of objection he had presented through his advocate Godwin Nyaisa.
They ruled that the application in question was hopelessly time barred as was filed in contravention of the Rule 11 (4) of the Court of Appeal Rules, as amended by Government Notice No. 362 of 2017. As per the Rule, according to the justices, the Bank, as applicant, ought to have filed the application within 14 days of service of the notice of execution on the appellant by the executing officer.
The justices noted further that the application could have in alternatively filed the application within such time from the date he is otherwise made aware of the existence of an application for execution.
According to them, the applicant was made aware of the existence of an application for execution by October 24, 2017. They rejected the submissions by counsel for the Bank that the counting of 14 days would have started after an order or ruling on application for day of execution is to be delivered.
“That definitely will be contrary to the mandatory requirements under Rule 11 (4) of the Rules which require the appellant to file his application for stay of execution within 14 days from the date he is made aware of the existence of an application for execution,” the justices said.
By simple calculation, they noted, as the applicant was made aware of the existence of an application for execution on October 24, 2017 and as such application was filed on November 9, 2017, the same was out of time for two days.
“Taking into account that the applicant was made aware of the existence of an application for execution on October 24, 2017, we agree with Mr Nyaisa that the issue of overlapping situation in the application of the Rules cannot apply in this case,” the justices concluded. Sioi is alleged to have won his employment case he lodged before the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration (CMA) in 2015 when the same delivered its Award in his favour.
This prompted the respondent to file execution application before the Labour Court to execute the said CMA Award. It was at that point in time when the applicant filed his application, seeking, among others, orders from the Court of Appeal that the decree of the High Court Labour Division be stayed pending final determination of an intended appeal.