COSTANTINE VICTOR JOHN VS. MUHIMBILI NATIONAL HOSPITAL. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 188/01 OF 2021.

Abstract

The said grounds one, two and four are not grounds of review envisaged under Rule 66 (1) (a) of the Rules as they require the Court to re-asses the evidence. The raised grounds do not depict an obvious or patent error which can be established without a long-drawn process of reasoning whereby there may be two opinions That this is a new ground as it is not pegged under any provision of Rule 66(1) of the Rules. We are of the considered view that the applicant's employment ought not to have been terminated since his absence from work without permission or without acceptable reason was not more than five working days and, therefore, in agreement with Mr. Mabula that had the Court been availed with this information, it would not have arrived at that conclusion.