MeTL employee loses appeal, to pay employer 35m/-

DAILY NEWS Reporter

THE Court of Appeal has rejected an appeal by former manager with Mohamed Enterprises Tanzania Limited (MeTL) Shafee Taherali, challenging the ruling that required him to pay over 35m/- to compensate the loss he had allegedly incurred in the course of his duties.

Justices Sauda Mjasiri, Ibrahim Juma and Stella Mugasha, sitting in Iringa, ruled in favour of the company, saying appeal against the findings of the High Court was time barred.

In the appeal, they noted, the notice of appeal against the decision of the High Court was filed on June 5, 2013 and the appeal was lodged more than two years later, on July 10, 2015.

“Since there is no valid certificate of delay, the appeal was lodged beyond the 60 days and hence contrary to Rule 90 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules. The appeal in incompetent and it is accordingly struck out,” they declared.

Certificate of delay is a document issued by the Registrar of the High Court under which the period of a party waiting to be supplied with the proceedings are excluded in the computation of time to file an appeal.

During the appeal hearing, the justices noted that the certificate of delay was not in the record and that the appellant had produced a loose piece of paper, purporting to be the certificate, asking the court to treat it as part of the record.

However, Dr Masumbuko Lamwai, counsel for MeTL, had submitted that since the certificate of delay was not in the record, the appeal was time barred because the law required the same to be lodged within 60 days after the filing of the notice of appeal.

Dr Lamwai urged the court to disregard the loose certificate of delay, saying it was not part of the record of appeal and that even if the court was to rely on the document, the same was defective as it was not dated.

Facts show that the appellant worked as manager of the company at Iringa Branch and was mandated to employ subordinate staff.

After the company conducted the audit of cash sales, stock and debtors as well as physical verification, the appellant failed to establish who had purchased items on credit. Therefore, there was indication of loss.

This led MeTL to institute a civil suit against the appellant, claiming 35,593,550/-, which constituted shortage or loss and misappropriation of funds.

The appellant partly admitted the claims, but raised a counter claim that he had worked for the company for 15 years without being paid salaries and allowances. He, thus, sought to be paid arrears due and owing to him for the last six years plus interests on the liability at commercial rate.