A Workplace Disciplinary Hearing in Tanzania Is Not a Criminal Trial

Many employees assume that an employer cannot discipline or dismiss them unless the accusation has first been proved in a criminal court. That assumption is understandable, especially where the allegation sounds serious, such as theft, fraud, dishonesty, violence, or misuse of company property. Still, employment law does not usually work in exactly the same way as criminal law. A recent Court of Appeal of Tanzania decision appears to clarify that an internal workplace disciplinary process is generally a civil employment matter, not a criminal trial.

The key case is North Mara Gold Mine Limited v Mwita Waise Samson, decided by the Court of Appeal of Tanzania on 13 May 2026. TanzLII summarises the decision as confirming that workplace disciplinary matters are civil in nature and are proved on a balance of probabilities. In plain language, this means the employer does not normally have to prove the allegation beyond reasonable doubt, which is the standard used in criminal cases. The employer must instead show that, on the evidence, the allegation is more likely than not to be true.

That clarification should not be read as a free pass for employers. The balance of probabilities is a lower standard than the criminal standard, but it is still a standard of proof. Rumours, pressure from a supervisor, workplace gossip, or a general feeling that an employee is probably guilty should not be enough. The employer must have evidence that can reasonably support the allegation. Just as importantly, the employer must still show that the reason for dismissal was valid and fair, and that the procedure followed before dismissal was fair.

Section 37 of Tanzania’s Employment and Labour Relations Act is central to this issue because it treats termination as unfair where the employer fails to prove a valid reason, a fair reason, and fair procedure. This means a disciplinary hearing must be more than a formal meeting arranged to confirm a decision that has already been made. The employee should know the accusation clearly. The evidence relied upon should be identified. The employee should have a real opportunity to respond, explain, question the allegation, and present relevant information. Where witnesses or documents matter, the employee should be given a fair chance to deal with them.

Fairness also depends on the attitude of the person or committee hearing the matter. A disciplinary panel that has already decided the outcome before the employee enters the room is unlikely to inspire confidence. The process should be calm, recorded properly, and handled by people who can listen. The employer is allowed to manage discipline, but that authority must be exercised with basic fairness. In some workplaces, especially where the employer is large and formal, these steps may be set out in a human resource manual or collective agreement. In smaller workplaces, the process may be less formal, but it should still be fair in substance.

For an everyday worker, the practical lesson is to take a disciplinary notice seriously from the beginning. If called to a hearing, the employee should ask for the allegations in writing, the evidence relied on, the date and time of the hearing, and enough time to prepare. It is also sensible to keep copies of the employment contract, payslips, warning letters, attendance records, performance records, emails, WhatsApp messages, suspension letters, and any termination letter. These documents may later become important if the matter goes before the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration or another competent forum.

During the hearing, the employee should try to remain focused on the allegation and the evidence. It may help to write down who attended, what was said, what documents were shown, whether witnesses were mentioned, and whether the employee was allowed to respond. If the employee disagrees with the minutes or the way the process is being recorded, that concern should be raised as early as possible. A disciplinary hearing can feel intimidating, but silence may later be misunderstood as acceptance of facts that were never properly proved.

The decision also raises a useful point about proportionality. Even if an employer believes that misconduct has been proved on a balance of probabilities, dismissal is not automatically the only answer. The employer should consider the nature of the misconduct, the employee’s record, the harm caused, workplace rules, consistency with previous cases, and whether a warning or another sanction would have been reasonable. Some misconduct may justify dismissal immediately. Other misconduct may not. A fair process should leave room for that distinction.

Where the same facts also become a criminal matter, the situation can become more complex. A workplace may proceed with internal discipline even where a criminal case has not been completed, but the employee should seek legal advice quickly because statements made in one process may affect another. Employers should also be cautious, since the existence of a police complaint does not remove the duty to follow fair labour procedures. Criminal justice and workplace discipline may overlap, but they do not become the same process simply because the allegation is serious.

The 2025 labour law amendments in Tanzania make careful attention to process even more important. Workers and employers need to understand the correct labour dispute channels, the remedies available where termination is unfair, and the time limits that apply. A dismissed employee should not wait too long before seeking advice or approaching the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration. Labour disputes often move under strict timelines, and delay may weaken a claim that could otherwise have been heard.

The key message is straightforward. A workplace disciplinary hearing is not a criminal trial, but it must still be fair. The employer does not usually need to prove the accusation beyond reasonable doubt, yet it must prove a valid and fair reason on a balance of probabilities and must follow a fair procedure. For employees, the strongest protection is to demand clarity, keep evidence, participate carefully in the hearing, and challenge unfair dismissal promptly where the process or the reason appears defective.

Source note and disclaimer. This article is based on the TanzLII listing of North Mara Gold Mine Limited v Mwita Waise Samson, Civil Appeal No. 202412130001470 of 2024, [2026] TZCA 556, Court of Appeal of Tanzania, decided on 13 May 2026. It also refers to section 37 of the Employment and Labour Relations Act and to The Labour Laws Amendments Act, 2025, Act No. 4 of 2025, published and commenced on 14 March 2025. This article provides public legal awareness only and is not a substitute for legal advice on a specific employment dispute.