compensation to workmen for injuries suffered in the course of their employment. The compensation paid is not based on fault (negligence) of the employer. Although the Act needs substantial amendments, it nevertheless provides a better protection for the employees than the common law rules. The Act is heavily weighed in favour of the employee, e.g. S. 25B (T). (1)compensation for injury. S. 5(1) (v). (2)Course of employment. S. 5(2). Compare this with vicarious liability: Ali Mahdi v. Abdulla Mohammed (1961) EA 83 Virani v. Dharamsi (1967) EA 132. Compensation payable, amount payable for a particular injury, methods of calculating, etc: ss. 6-12 Patel v. Patel (1964) EA 55 Notice of the accident:
139 s. 13 Out of court settlement: s. 15 (T). Abdula v. Rudnap Zambia Ltd. (1971) EA 427 Determination of claim: s. 3(1) (T). s. 16 Ali Mahdi v. Abdulla Mohammed (1961) EA 83 Jurisdiction of the Court: s. 22 (T). Independent Contractors: s. 22 (T). Common Law rights: s. 24 (T). Can this section be said to have abolished the doctrine of common employment? Abdula v. Rudnap Zambia Ltd. (1971) EA 427 Patel v. Patel (1964) EA. 55 Cap. 263 of the Laws of Tanzania also provides for compensation for
