Notice of Representation: Appointment or Mere Notification?

01

The Background

Following a CMA award in favour of Hassan Issa Shikila, Jambo Food Products Company Limited sought to uplift a warrant of attachment issued in Labour Execution No. 9140 of 2026 and to stay execution pending Revision Application No. 11509 of 2026.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection arguing that the Notice of Representation filed by the applicant’s advocate was invalid because the advocate had purportedly appointed himself and signed the notice in his own name.

02

The Legal Issue

The Court first had to distinguish the substantive appointment of a representative under section 56 of the Labour Institutions Act from the notification required by Rule 43 of the Labour Court Rules. It then considered whether sections 92 and 94 of the Employment and Labour Relations Act supported the requested relief and whether a second stay application should proceed while an earlier one remained pending.

03

The Court’s Decision

The preliminary objection to representation was overruled. The prayer to uplift the warrant of attachment was dismissed because the statutory provisions invoked did not provide a legal foundation for setting aside that execution process.

The stay prayer was struck out as procedurally misconceived because Miscellaneous Application No. 11672 of 2026 already sought substantially the same relief. The applicant remained free to pursue that earlier application, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

04

The Reasoning

Reasoning 01

Appointment and notification are different acts

Section 56 creates the right to representation. Rule 43 requires the representative to notify the Registrar and the other parties of an appointment that has already taken place.

Reasoning 02

The representative signs the notice

Rule 43 places the notification duty on the representative. The notice does not initiate proceedings, determine rights, or substitute itself for the party’s instructions or authorisation.

Reasoning 03

The invoked provisions did not uplift the attachment

Section 92(3) permits a stay of enforcement pending a challenge to an award, but it does not itself authorise nullification of an execution order already issued by the Deputy Registrar. Section 94 supplied no independent basis for that relief.

Reasoning 04

Duplicate stay proceedings should be avoided

The same stay relief was already before the Court in Application No. 11672. Entertaining it again risked duplication and inconsistent decisions between courts of coordinate jurisdiction.