Advocate Muneri & 2 Ors v Five Star Industries (Pvt) Ltd

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/286/25
HARARE, 22 JULY, 2025 AND 08 AUGUST, 2025
CASE NO. LC/H/474/25
ADVOCATE MUNERI
1ST APPLICANT
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/286/25 HARARE, 22 JULY, 2025 AND 08 AUGUST 2025		CASE NO.	LC/H/474/25

ADVOCATE MUNERI	1ST APPLICANT

ELLEN MUZA	2ND APPLICANT

EMMANUEL HAKAMELA	3RD APPLICANT

FIVE STAR INDUSTRIES (PVT) LTD	RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable G. Musariri, Judge:

For Applicant	- T. Marimo, Attorney

For Respondent	- H. Ndudzo, Attorney

MUSARIRI, J:

Applicants applied to this Court for condonation of a belated review. The application was made in terms of Rule 22 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. At the onset of oral argument respondent raised a point in limine.

The point is expatiated in respondent’s opposing affidavit thus,

“Improper joinder

The applicants have improperly joined their application for condonation when their respective disciplinary cases were handled separately.

While the applicants were all charged with the offence of theft, it is common cause that they were each subjected to distinct and individual disciplinary proceedings, convened separately, with different notices and procedural developments.

It is trite that for multiple parties to institute joint proceedings, there must exist a substantial degree of commonality of facts and legal issues, and the relief sought must arise from the same transaction or occurrence. The mere similarity of charges does not, in itself, entitle parties to amalgamate their proceedings, particularly where the conduct, evidence led, and proceedings differ materially.

The current application fails to meet the threshold for proper joinder. The applicants have failed to demonstrate that their matters are so interconnected as to justify a single application. Instead, they improperly seek to consolidate disparate proceedings into one, thereby obscuring critical procedural distinctions and prejudicing the respondent, which is now burdened with responding to a composite application that fails to adequately set out each applicant’s individual case, explanation for delay, and prospects of success.”

Applicant’s heads of argument countered that

“2.3. The principles on joinder are permissive under Zimbabwean law, even if regard is had to Rule 33 of the Labour Court Rules with respect to matters already filed or ……

In casu, all Applicants were dismissed on the same day, based on similar allegations, under identical procedural circumstances. They are represented by the same law firm and were formerly represented by the same trade union.

The facts, law, and relief sought are entirely common, rendering separate applications duplicative and wasteful.”

Analysis

Rule 33 (cited by applicant) of the Labour Court Rules provides that

“(1)  A Judge, prior to a hearing or in the course of a hearing may, at his or her own instance, or upon application by a party order that two or more applications, appeals or reviews be consolidated or heard together and may give directions on all other matters related thereto as to give effect to the order.”

The Rule refers to separate matters pending in Court which a Judge may consolidate. It does not apply in casu where the applicants themselves consolidated their applications before filing.

Each applicant was employed by respondent in terms of an individual contract of employment. Respondent terminated the contracts. The applicants want the terminations reviewed by this Court. They are out time for review, hence the application for condonation of belated reviews. Clearly each applicant has a separate cause of action. Furthermore each applicant is required to explain his own reason/s for the delay in seeking review. There was no justification for consolidation of the disparate claims by applicants before filing in Court. They should have filed separate applications which could be heard together upon an order made in terms of Rule 33.

The Court’s conclusion is consistent with the dicta in the case of

Drum City v Garudzo 2018 (2) ZLR 445 (S)

Per Gwaunza DCJ Para (17) at 450G

“A third party who has, or may have a direct and substantial interest in any order the court might make in proceedings or if such an order cannot be sustained or carried into effect without prejudicing that party, is a necessary party and should be joined to the proceedings……”

In casu each co-applicant is a third party to the others’ claims. He has no ‘direct and substantial’ interest in the order sought by the one. Therefore as a third party he should not be joined in their application/s. However it would be inequitable to dismiss the application on account of the misjoinder. The applications shall be split so as to proceed as 3 separate applications.

Wherefore it is ordered that;

Respondent’s point in limine be and is hereby upheld,

The Registrar of this Court is directed to take all necessary steps to split the matter into three separate applications under the names of the respective applicants; and

Each party shall bear its own costs.

G. MUSARIRI J-U-D-G-E