Agnes Garikai v Lancet Clinical Laboratories

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/118/2024
HARARE, 16 FEBRUARY, 2024
CASE NO LC/H/661/23
19 MARCH 2023
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE

HARARE, 16 FEBRUARY, 2024

19 MARCH 2023

JUDGMENT NO LC/H/118/2024 CASE NO LC/H/661/23

AGNES GARIKAI	APPELLANT

LANCET CLINICAL LABORATORIES	RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable G. Musariri, Judge:

For Appellant	- Mr E. Chigova, Unionist

For Respondent	- Mr T. J. Chivanga, Attorney

MUSARIRI, J:

At the onset of oral argument in this Court respondent raised 2 points in limine which appellant opposed. Respondent abandoned the other points mentioned in his papers. The points shall be dealt with herein ad seriatim.

That there is no valid notice of appeal before the Court:

On the 28th July 2023 this Court granted (now) appellant’s application for condonation of a belated appeal. The Court ordered that the appeal be filed within 10 (ten) days of the order. That means the appeal should have been filed by close of business on Friday 11th August 2023. Applicant filed the present appeal on 24th August 2023. Apparently she failed to comply with the condonation order.

JUDGMENT NO LC/H/118/24

Appellant’s representative sought to explain from the bar that before they could file the appeal they required a copy of the condonation judgment. They sought a copy from the Registrar of the Court who allegedly supplied wrong copies on 2 occasions. That accounted for their failure to meet the deadline in the condonation order.

Appellant lost the right to appeal on expiry of the deadline set by this Court. No valid appeal could be filed after the deadline without another condonation by the Court. The explanation that appellant made from the bar is what should inform a fresh application for condonation should she wish to pursue that route. Once the judgment was uploaded online appellant was supposed to access it instantly via her ICT gadgets. In any event she did not need the judgment to formulate grounds of appeal. What was needed was the determination by the lower tribunal which she should have.

That the 1st ground of appeal is vague and embarrassing:

In light of the Court’s take on the 1st point in limine, it is unnecessary to deal with the 2nd point.

Wherefore it is ordered that,

Respondent’s 1st point in limine be and is hereby upheld;

The notice of appeal is struck off the roll as it is a nullity; and

Each party shall

J-U-D-G-E