Antony Chibamu v Freda Rebecca Gold Mine Ltd

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/27/24
HARARE, 29 NOVEMBER, 2023
CASE NO. LC/H/763/23
AND 30 JANUARY 2024
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/27/24 HARARE, 29 NOVEMBER, 2023		CASE NO. LC/H/763/23 AND 30 JANUARY 2024

ANTONY CHIBAMU	APPLICANT

Versus

FREDA REBECCA GOLD MINE LTD	RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable Kudya J;

For the Applicant	- V. Vhera (Legal Practitioner) For the Respondent	- W. Musikadi (Legal Practitioner)

KUDYA J:

This is an application for the condonation of late noting of a review application. Applicant claims that he failed to file his review timeously because he had erroneously filed his review a day out of time but had not sought condonation thus resulting in the striking off of his matter. He also states that there were technical glitches that beset his filing the review on time when he filed his appeal on time. He says further delays were occasioned by the respondent’s failure to give him the full record of proceedings on time. He also cites lack of funds as adding to his late noting of the review. Principles for condonation are settled. See Jansen v Acavalos 1993(1)ZLR 216(S).

In the matter at hand the respondent is opposed to the granting of condonation relief citing the fact that applicant did not state clearly what glitches he faced with filing his application in IECMS yet he managed to file his appeal on time.

JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/27/24

It also says that the review is merely on afterthought. It also states that it gave applicant the record of proceedings on time. In the ultimate it says that the review has no merit as it is clear that applicant committed the infraction complained about. It reiterate that if there were any procedural irregularities and those cannot be used to upset the guilt findings which were made on the facts.

A reading of the record shows that it needed applicant to write more than once to the respondent to get the record of proceedings. It is clear from that set of facts that it would have been difficult for applicant to appeal to or seek review of proceedings which he did not have. His excuse is therefore plausible. As regards the IECMS argument the court takes judicial notice of the fact that once a party is out of sync with the timelines set out in the rules it can be difficult to file processes with the court on IECMS.

In any event no narration of the exact challenges can suffice to grant or deny the applicant a chance for the court to test whether his guilt was birthed by both procedural and substantive compliance with the law. The court is of the view that justice would not be served by barring the applicant from accessing the court on review when he is of the considered view that his matter did not meet the procedural fairness standards. It is imperative that matter be concluded on merits and not on technicalities. See Bhunu JA on Freda Rebecca v Mapondera SC 81-22.

In the ultimate the court is satisfied that a good case for condonation has been made out. It should therefore succeed.

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. Application for condonation for late noting of review being with merit it be and is hereby granted with each party bearing own costs.

Tamuka Moyo Attorneys – Applicant legal practitioners

Chimuka Mafunga Commercial Attorneys- Respondent legal practitioners

2