High Court grants former Nida officer 14 days to file judicial review in unfair dismissal case

In her ruling, Judge Mkwizu upheld only one of several grounds, namely that there was an alleged breach of the law requiring the Court’s intervention, and granted him 14 days to file his application for such leave.

Manyumba filed Extension Application No 28086 of 2025 against the Chief Secretary (CS) as first respondent, Nida as second respondent, and the Attorney General (AG) as third respondent.

According to his affidavit filed at the High Court, Manyumba states that he was employed by Nida on September 10, 2015, as a Registration Officer Grade II, and that his appointment was confirmed by the second respondent on September 30, 2016.

However, he claims that on December 14, 2022, he was issued a notice alleging that he had committed three offences between December 2021 and October 2022 and was given 14 days to respond, though the ruling did not disclose the allegations.

On December 28, 2022, he responded, denying all the charges. Still, the second respondent rejected his explanation and formed a four-member Disciplinary Committee, including Nida Human Resources (HR) officer, Ms Edna Wanna.

During the hearing, the employer called no witness, and he attended the disciplinary session without representation, signed the proceedings without scrutiny, and was charged with what he described as unfounded offences.

On March 10, 2023, the applicant received a dismissal letter effective January 31, 2023, without being granted an opportunity to defend himself.

He requested the investigation report and appointment letters of the Disciplinary Committee members, but was not provided with them and only received the proceedings, prompting him to appeal to the Public Service Commission (PSC), which dismissed the appeal on February 20, 2024.

According to the applicant, his appeal was dismissed without the PSC considering his grounds; similarly, his appeal to the President of the United Republic of Tanzania was rejected without addressing his reasons.

During that period, he claims he fell ill and received treatment at the Jakaya Kikwete Cardiac Institute (JKCI) on February 15, 2025, and also faced financial hardship, preventing him from filing court leave applications.

After recovery, he resumed drafting the leave application to enable him to institute judicial review proceedings, but did not complete it due to the General Election and an internet shutdown.

In the application, he argues that his dismissal violated Article 13(6)(a) of the Constitution of Tanzania by denying him an opportunity to defend himself, not being heard by the Disciplinary Authority, and refusing to provide the investigation report.

He further contended that HR officer, Ms Wanna, presenting the charges, breached the principle of impartiality by acting as prosecutor and judge simultaneously.

Additionally, he alleged legal violations throughout the decision-making process and stated that the President rejected his appeal, relying on proceedings that inadequately addressed his grounds.

Respondents’ reply

The first, second, and third respondents opposed the extension application, arguing that no legal breach existed warranting judicial review.

They maintained that the applicant failed to justify the 82-day delay from August 15, 2025, to November 7, 2025, and that the reasons given were insufficient to persuade the Court.

They relied on Civil Appeal No 12 of 2018 between Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA) and African Cargo Handling Ltd, where the Court held that financial or personal difficulties do not justify delay.

Regarding illness, the respondents argued that the JKCI letter marked exhibit “K” did not show he was completely prevented from seeking legal remedy and that treatment alone cannot excuse delay.

They also denied the alleged legal breach, stating that the applicant was informed of the charges, responded, appeared before the committee, and signed the attendance register.

They denied claims that he was punished unheard, asserting that he was provided with the requested documents, including the investigation report, and possessed the necessary records to appeal.

Judge’s ruling

In her ruling published on the Court website on Saturday, February 28, 2026, Judge Mkwizu said leave applications for judicial review must be filed within six months.

However, she said that in this case, the applicant failed to comply, relying on illness and an internet shutdown from October 29 to November 3, 2025, which hindered the preparation of documents.

After reviewing the records, she said the illness evidence did not demonstrate how it prevented filing between February and October 2025, nor did it explain the delay in contacting lawyers.

“The applicant cites financial hardship as a contributing factor. But our laws are clear that economic problems or lack of funds are not grounds for extension,” she said.

“There is another issue. He states that after receiving the JKCI letter, he sought advice, yet his affidavit is silent on whom he consulted and the nature of that advice before filing the case,” reads part of the ruling.

On the alleged legal breach, the judge said that even without a sufficient explanation for the delay, the existence of a breach may justify an extension.

“The law recognises that where an applicant raises questions of jurisdiction or procedural breach, the Court must consider them in the interest of justice. But not every breach warrants extension,” she said.

“The complained-of breach must be clear and self-evident on the record and not require lengthy inquiry. The Court must satisfy itself that the breach is not speculative,” she stressed.

She stated that paragraph 13 of the affidavit alleges the decision was affected by procedural irregularities, including a denial of equality at all stages of the hearing.

She further noted that the applicant complained that Nida acted as both complainant and decision-maker, denied him the right to cross-examine, and withheld key documents.

Although the allegations raise serious issues, she said the law requires that the breach cited for extension be apparent on the record without the need for protracted evidence.

Examining the record, she noted that the dismissal letter dated March 10, 2023, indicated termination effective January 31, 2023, clearly showing a legal breach.

The Court therefore found that the application had merit, allowed it, and granted 14 days from the date of the ruling for the applicant to file a leave application for judicial review proceedings.