Woman charged with seducing houseboy

My friend who lives with her husband and a houseboy is charged with seducing their houseboy. The houseboy complained to the police that my friend has been seducing him when my friend’s husband is away. Is it an offence for a woman to try to have a sexual relationship with a houseboy if the boy is 18 years old or above?  
MM, Musoma

Under our laws, there is no offence called seducing a houseboy or seduction. We believe you have misconceived the offence with which your friend is charged. Your friend should give you a charge sheet for you to read and understand the offence with which she is charged.

What your friend could have been charged with is provided for under section 138D(1) and (3) of the Penal Code which prohibits unwelcomed sexual advances by words or action made at a workplace or any other place by a person in authority. Unwelcomed sexual advances by a superior is called sexual harassment and not seduction.

Under our law a woman cannot rape but she can commit the offence of sexual harassment. Since your friend had the authority over the houseboy, she was prohibited from making unwelcomed sexual advances to the houseboy. She would have been safe if the houseboy had welcomed the sexual advances. If the police prove that the houseboy truly did not welcome the sexual advances, they may be able to successfully prosecute her for the offence of sexual harassment.

Positive discrimination

My company has recently promoted a lady to be a head of our department after an annual performance appraisal. This is the first lady to be a head of department in the history of the company and she is very boastful. I have seen the performance appraisal results and noted that I had two points ahead of hers. The company performance appraisal is scaled at 100 points.  Is this promotion not discriminatory?
PP, Arusha

The law requires every employer to ensure that she/he promotes an equal opportunity in employment and strives to eliminate discrimination in any employment policy or practice. Nevertheless, the law allows positive discrimination. Section 7(6) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act, 2004 (R.E. 2019) states that it is not discrimination to take affirmative action measures consistent with the promotion of equality or the elimination of discrimination in the workplace; to distinguish, exclude or prefer any person on the basis of an inherent requirement of a job; or to employ citizens in accordance with the National Employment Promotion Services Act.

You have said that the promoted lady is the first to be a head of department in the history of your company. This reveals that your company has not been either employing or promoting women in the managerial positions, which amounts to gender discrimination. Thus, despite the fact that you earned two points in the performance appraisal, which is not significantly different from what she earned anyway, the company seems to have decided to take an affirmative action to eliminate discrimination against gender in promoting female employees to hold managerial position.

The law further requires an employer to register with the Labour Commissioner a plan to promote equal opportunity and to eliminate discrimination in the work place.

Safety information in public passenger vehicles

Before a domestic flight takes off, it is common to hear cabin crew informing passengers about safety rules. However, in public passengers’ vehicles we rarely hear such announcements. Does it mean that we don’t have in our laws imposing on the bus crew the obligation to inform their passengers about safety rules before departure? 
SM, Lindi

Regulation 10(2)(d) and 20(1)(e) of the Land Transport Regulatory Authority (Certification of Commercial Vehicle Drivers and Registration of Crew) Regulations, 2020 imposes on the crew of passengers vehicle an obligation to ensure the passengers are informed about safety requirement prior to the departure and throughout the journey. The problem is probably the enforcement of this law. A crew who fails to inform the passengers about the safety rules is committing an offence and liable to a fine ranging between TZS 50,000 and 200,000 or imprisonment between 1 and 12 months.

Purchaser refuses to sign contract with company without seal

I am an accountant working with a newly established company. We want to enter into a contract for supplying our products to another company (the purchaser). Our retained lawyers prepared a draft contract which we sent to the purchaser for signing. However, the purchaser has refused to sign the contract until we affix our company common seal. We don’t yet have a common seal. The purchaser’s director says it is illegal for a company to execute a document without affixing its common seal. Is the director’s assertion correct?
GH, Tanga

The purchaser’s director is incorrect as affixing a common seal of a company in executing documents is not mandatory. Section 39 of the Companies Act states that a document executed by a company can be executed either by affixing its common seal or where a common seal is not fixed, a document signed by a director and the secretary of a company, or by two directors of a company, and expressed (in whatever form of words) to be executed by the company has the same effect as if executed under the common seal of the company. Having said this, the market practice is that most company documents are executed under seal.

You can thus refer to the above cited law while persuading the purchaser’s director to sign the draft contract or alternatively and to avoid arguments, get a company seal. You will certainly need it one day!