Tanzania Posts Corporation Vs Dominic A Kalangi, CA, No 12 of 2012.

On this case the main issue was whether a public servant may bring dispute to CMA without exhausting local remedies.?

Based on the foregoing premise that the respondent was a public 

servant, a fact which was gracefully conceded by the respondent 

himself, the [earned State Attorney submitted further that, pursuant to 

section 25 of the Public Service Act (Cap 298 R.E. 2019) as amended by 

the Written Laws Miscellaneous Amendment Act (Act No. 13 of 2016), 

the respondent ought to have referred his grievances to the Public Service Commission by way of an appeal. She added that, pursuant to section 32A which was introduced by the said amendments in the year2016, which requires a public servant to exhaust the avenue available 

under the Public Service Act, the respondent should have referred his 

complaints to the Public Service Commission before resorting to the 

CM A, The learned State Attorney conceded the fact that before the 

amendment of the law in 2016, labour disputes involving public servants 

could be referred to the CMA.

 However, she was quick to point out that, 

since the respondent’s contract of service was terminated on 10th July2017, after the coming into force of the new law, it was wrong for the respondent to refer this dispute to the CMA on 27th July, 2017 contrary to the mandatory requirements of the law. Ms. Kinyasi rested her submission by pleading with us to sustain this ground, quash and set aside the proceedings and orders both before the CMA and the High 

Court for want of jurisdiction. The learned State Attorney referred us to our earlier decision in Joseph Khenan v Nkasi District Council, Civil Appeal No. 126 of 2019 (unreported) to reinforce her argument.

In the context of the instant case, the CMA is further kept at bay from entertaining labour disputes involving public servants by the provisions of section 32A referred to by Ms. Kinyasi, which states categorically that: –

“/4 public servant shall, prior to seeking remedies provided for in labour laws, exhaust all remedies asprovided for under this Act”.

From the foregoing analysis and conclusions, we entertain no doubt whatsoever that, the respondent in the present case was a public servant and therefore, upon termination of his contract of service and, on being aggrieved by the said termination, the provisions of section 25 (1) (a) and (b) of the Public Service Act would have come into play. 

For this reason, it is our conclusion that, indeed the CMA had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute between the appellant and the respondent who was a public servant. On this account, without recourse to the remaining ground of appeal, this appeal is found to have merit 

and is accordingly allowed.

 The proceedings before the CMA and the 

High Court are quashed and the orders emanating therefrom are set aside. This being a labour dispute, we make no order as to costs.