Court orders school to pay teacher 50m/- for unfair termination

THE Morogoro International School is to pay its former Information Communication Technology (ICT) Coordinator and Teacher, Hongo Manyanya, over 50m/- for unfair termination of his employment services.

This follows the decision of the Court of Appeal to dismiss the appeal in which the school, the appellant, had lodged to fault the decision of the High Court, which confirmed the findings of the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration (CMA) of Morogoro, ruling in favour of Manyanya, the respondent.

Justices Augustine Mwarija, Lilian Mashaka and Omar Makungu said that the High Court judge could not be faulted in his judgment as the grounds raised lacked legal merits.

“Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed. This being a labour matter, we make no order as to costs,” they ruled.

Before reaching into the decision, the justices considered two issues, including whether there was new issue raised by the CMA and confirmed by the High Court, which was not pleaded and recorded in the case file and if the remedies awarded were fit for unfair termination not in breach of contract.

They noted from the impugned judgment that the High Court Judge observed that the CMA rightly considered the whole evidence in assessing the validity of the reasons for termination of contract advanced by the appellant.

The justices also observed that the High Court Judge agreed with the reasons of the CMA that the act of the appellant of recruiting new employees defeated the reasons of terminating the respondent on the financial crisis’s basis, thus no new issue was raised in which the parties were not heard.

“We agree with the High Court decision on that complaint that there was no new issue raised by the CMA out of the agreed issues, including whether there was a valid reason for termination; whether the procedure for termination was adhered to and what reliefs are the parties entitled,” they said.

The justices were of the firm view that the law governing the matter at hand was purely labour laws, henceforth, it was rightly decided by the High Court Judge.

According to the impugned judgment, the High Court Judge had decided that since the respondent’s fixed term contract was terminated by the appellant school while still in existence, henceforth the monthly salary for the remaining period in that contract has to be paid by the appellant.

“We are in agreement with the (High Court) Judge that, the principle of unfair termination is inapplicable to this case because the contract of employment was a fixed term contract,” the Justices said.

According to them, the law is clear that, where the contract of employment is for a fixed term, the contract expires automatically when the contract period expires unless the employee breaches the contract before the expiry, in which case the employer may terminate the contract.

On the other hand, the justices said, the employer must have a fair reason to terminate the contract in case of the indefinite contract of employment and must follow a fair procedure in that regard.

“The foregoing proves that the appellant did not have the right to terminate the fixed term contract unless the respondent breaches it before its expiry. This was not the case because the appellant was the one who terminated the contract based on the reason of financial constraints,” they said.

In that regard, it was the position of the Justices that the High Court decision was right when it treated the matter as a breach of contract when handling the remedies respects.

The respondent was employed by the appellant in the capacity of ICT coordinator and ICT teacher for a contract of two years from August 1, 2016 up to August 31, 2018. He enjoyed his employment until July 31, 2017. He was terminated for reason that the appellant was facing economic hardship.

Having being not satisfied with the appellant’s reason for his termination, the respondent successfully challenged that termination on account of substance and procedure being unfair and sought to be compensated with 12 months’ salary in the tune of 25,435,200/- pending in his contract.

The respondent also sought for 12 month’s salary in the tune of 25,435,200/- for unfair termination. He won the battle before the CMA and further emerged a winner in a subsequent revision lodged by the appellant before the High Court Labour Division, at Morogoro.