Rubama, J.: Gosbert Edward Rweyemamu is suing Tanzania Wood Industry Corporation for wrongful termination of employment. He had been employed on two years contract and positioned at the time of his termination as General Manager of E Tabora Msitu Products Company Ltd. In the Written Statement of defence, Tanzania Wood Industry Corporation raise a preliminary objection that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as is provided by s. 28(1) of the Security of Employment Act Cap. 574. This raised objection was argued by Mrs. Mulebya, learned advocate F for the defendant. Mr. Mrugaruga, A Labour Officer appearing for the plaintiff replied.
Mrs. Mulebya submitted that by virtue of s.28(1) of the Security of Employment Act 1964, this court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. She quoted several cases that G had dealt with this question of ousting of jurisdiction: Kitundu Sisal Estate v Shingo and Others [1976] E.A. 557, a case decided by the Eastern Africa Court of Appeal; James Sankey v M/S Caltex Oil [1973] LRT n. 46 (Biron, J.); Walter Jager v Cordula Ltd. t/a Tanganyika Tourist Hotels and Oyster Bay Hotel [1972] H H.C.D. 133 (Onyiuke, J.). In reply Mr. Mrugaruga referred the court to the Security Employment (Amendment) Act, 1969 and some cases decided under it: Walter Jager v Corbula Ltd. t/a Tanganyika Tourist Hotels and Oyster Bay Hotel (supra) and David Kamugisha v Bukop Ltd. Civil case No. 49/90 (Mwanza Registry) I (unreported, Sekule, J) Mr.
Mrugaruga submitted that the trial court is not expected to dismiss the plaint as called A upon by Mrs. Mulebya but stay the suit leaving either party seek the labour officer's opinion on whether or not the plaintiff as in this case is in a managerial position. Mr. Mrugaruga went on to submit that the labour officer's opinion was obtained in the case B under consideration. I hasten to point out on this last submission that there is no record in the case file that supports the submission.
I have gone through all the cases referred to the court except for the case of David Kamugisha v Bukop Ltd. (supra). I could not lay my hands on this case C notwithstanding my efforts. On these decided cases, the prayer by Mrs. Mulebya cannot be granted. I dismiss the preliminary objection for want of merit.
Unlike as was the case in James Sankey v M/S Caltex Oil (supra) it is not that easy in the present case to determine the question of the jurisdiction of this court to hear and D determine the case before getting the labour officer's opinion of whether the plaintiff was employed in the management of the defendant's business or not. If the circumstances I go the way Onyiuke, J. went in the case of Walter Jager v Cordula Ltd. t/a Tanganyika Tourist Hotels and Oyster Bay Hotel (supra) and order stay of the suit E leaving it open, in the words of Onyiuke, J. in the case quoted above, at p. 136, "for other to obtain the opinion of the labor officer under section 4(e) of the Security of Employment Act as amended by the Security of Employment (Amendment) Act, No. 45 of 1969."
F Order accordingly.
G
________________
