Bertha Kwaramba v ZUPCO (Pvt) Ltd

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/164/2016
HARARE, 10 FEBRUARY 2016 &
18 MARCH 2016
CASE NO LC/H/388/2015
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	         JUDGMENT NO LC/H/164/2016

HARARE, 10 FEBRUARY 2016 &				         CASE NO LC/H/388/2015

18 MARCH 2016

BERTHA KWARAMBA						        APPELLANT

ZUPCO (PVT) LTD							        RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable G Musariri  :  Judge

For the Appellant	P Gwenje  (Trade Unionist)

For the Respondent     A A Makore (Legal Practitioner)

MUSARIRI J:

On 28th April 2015 the appellant filed an appeal in this Court. On 13th May 2015 the respondent filed a Response. The grounds of appeal were written in long hand as follows:

“Unfair treatment, unfair allegations resulting in an unfair dismissal from unfounded allegations.”

The terse grounds of appeal provoked a robust response by the respondent thus;

“In Limine General Overview

There is no appeal before the Honourable Court. The general statements presented in the notice of appeal are broad and far reaching and, crucially, do not satisfy the legal test for grounds of appeal at law. They do not show were the Disciplinary Committee erred at law….”

I am persuaded by the respondent’s argument. An appeal should identify the determination appealed against. It should then state in clear and concise terms the grounds of appeal against the determination. In the process it should inform both the court and the respondent of the case it is intended to argue on appeal.

The “appeal” in casu falls far short of the requirements. The Court is left in the dark as to what the case is all about. Neither is the respondent alerted of the case it must prepare for. It is a generalised gripe against an adverse determination. Such does not pass muster and accordingly the “appeal” fails on that basis.

There was a belated attempt by the appellant to make out a case in her Heads of Argument. It is not for the Court to divine grounds of appeal in the Heads. The grounds should have been properly stated in the appeal which is the founding document. The deficiency meant that the matter had no foundation or basis to begin with.

Wherefore it is ordered that:

The respondent’s point in limine is hereby upheld; and

There being no valid grounds of appeal, the matter is struck off the roll.

G Musariri

J U D G E

/