TANZANIA : THE Court of Appeal has granted an application for stay of execution of the decree issued by the High Court to Shelys Pharmaceuticals Limited to pay 187m/- to its former employee, Ms Salome Mawolle.
Shelys Pharmaceuticals Limited is therefore supposed to deposit that amount in court a Bank’s Guarantee as security for the implementation of the decree.
Justices Ferdinand Wambali, Rehema Kerefu and Benhajj Masoud gave the order against Salome, the respondent, after granting an application for stay of execution of the decree in question.
“……we allow the application. Consequently, we order that the execution of the judgment and decree of the High Court, Labour Division, in Labour Revision No. 816 of 2019, be placed on hold pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal to this Court.
“We further, order that, the stay of the execution herein granted is subject to the applicant depositing a Bank’s Guarantee in the sum of 187,936,786/- within thirty days of the date hereof as the security for the due performance of the decree,” the justices declared.
They observed that the applicant brought her application in compliance with rule 11(4) and (7) of the Court of Appeal Rules and cumulatively fulfilled the conditions under rule 11 (5)(a) and (b) of the Rules to warrant the grant of the application for stay of execution.
In their ruling delivered in Dar es Salaam recently, the justices noted that the respondent had not contested the substance of the application but urged the Court to order the applicant to furnish security for the due performance of the decree.
“The applicant has shown in her affidavit in support of the application the substantial loss she stands to suffer if the execution is not stayed. She has in addition given a firm undertaking under to furnish security for the due performance of the decree as may ultimately be binding on her,” they said.
According to the record of the application, the respondent was initially employed by the applicant on June 15, 2001 as a Sales Representative Promotion Trainee. She rose to the managerial position as a Logistics Distribution Manager before she was terminated on October 13, 2016.
Dissatisfied, the respondent referred the dispute to the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration (CMA). In its decision dated August 7, 2019, the CMA ordered reinstatement of the respondent without loss of remuneration.
The decision did not please the applicant who filed Labour Revision before the High Court to contest it. In its decision, the finding by the High Court that the termination of the respondent’s employment by the applicant was unfair both procedurally and substantively.
Consistent with such finding was, a further finding that, given the time lapse after the termination of the respondent’s employment and the manner in which the termination was carried, reinstatement of the respondent was not the best option in the circumstances.
It was thus ordered that the respondent is entitled to be paid 187,936,786/-, which shall be subject to statutory deduction.
