C. Njinga and 59 Others v Freda Rebecca Gold Mine

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/807/2014
HARARE, 24 NOVEMBER 2014
CASE NO.
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	                 JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/807/2014

HARARE, 24 NOVEMBER 2014		           	          CASE NO. LC/H/APP/590/14

AND 05 DECEMBER 2014						     LC/H/871/13

In the matter between:-

C. NJINGA AND 59 OTHERS					Applicants

And

FREDA REBECCA GOLD MINE					Respondent

Before The Honourable F.C. Maxwell, Judge

(IN CHAMBERS)

MAXWELL, J:

On 13 November 2014 I dismissed with costs an appeal filed by Respondents after an application was made in terms of Rule 19 (3) (a) of the Labour Court Rules SI 59/2006.  The said rule obliges an appellant to file heads of argument within fourteen days of receiving a notice of response to the appeal.  On 20 November 2014 Respondent wrote to the Registrar of this Court requesting for a reasoned judgment.  The reasons for the dismissal of the appeal are clear.  Respondent did not comply with Rule 19 (1) (a).

Respondent noted an appeal on 28 October 2013.  A response was filed on 28 May 2014 and served on the Respondent on the same day.  Proof of service was tendered indicating what the notice of response was served on Respondent’s Legal Practitioners at 1551 hours.  In accordance with Rule 19 (1) (a) Respondent was obliged to file heads of argument within fourteen (14) days from 28 May 2014.  This Respondent did not do.  On 5 September 2014 Applicant filed an application for the dismissal of the Respondent’s appeal in terms of Rule 19 (3) (a).  In terms of Rule 19 (4) that application can be made without notice to the defaulting party.

Rule 19 (3) (a) does not give the Court a discretion when dealing with an application for dismissal for non-filing of heads of argument.  I noted that from the record Respondent has not filed any heads of argument in respect of the appeal to date.  The heads of argument on record pertain to an application for stay of execution.

Where time periods are provided for in a statute or legislation, it is intended to ensure the expeditions resolution of matters and therefore the principal litigant must prosecute its case expeditiously.  Where the principal litigant is not prosecuting its case expeditiously, Rule 19 (3) (a) provides relief for the other party which Applicant utilized.

For the above reasons I dismissed the appeal with costs.