Charles Mudukuti v Zimbabwe Parks & Wildlife Management Authority

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/240/16
HARARE ON 7th MARCH, 2016
CASE NO. LC/H/102/15
AND 13 MAY, 2016
In the matter between
CHARLES MUDUKUTI – APPELLANT
And
ZIMBABWE PARKS & WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY – RESPONDENT
Before The Honourable D.L. Hove, J.
For Appellant : In Person
For Respondent : Ms Chinoda Vimbayi (Legal Officer)
HOVE, J.
---------


The court’s power to grant relief should not be exercised – arbitrarily and upon the mere asking but with proper judicial/discretion and upon sufficient and satisfactory grounds being shown by the applicant. In the determination whether sufficient cause has been shown, the basic principle is that the court has a discretion, to be exercised judicially upon a consideration of all the facts, and in essence it is a matter of fairness to both sides in which the courts will endeavor to reach a conclusion that will be in the best interests of justice. The factors usually weighed by the court in considering applications for condonation ------- include the degree of non-compliance, the explanation for it the importance of the case, prospects of success, the respondent’s interest in the finality of his judgment the convenience of the court and the avoidance of unnecessary delay in the administration of justice.”

The delay in casu is clearly inordinate extending to a period in excess of one year.

The explanation given for the delay is not reasonable as previously indicated in shows a serious lack of seriousness and lack of diligence no affidavit has been placed before the Court by the officer who had earlier been seized with the matter to explain why the notice was not filed in terms of the Rules. No explanation why the new officer never checked in preparing to argue this matter to ensure that her papers were in compliance with rules. In fact there is no explanation at all but just a plea to be condoned.

The courts have held that where no reasonable explanation has been given or where in some cases no explanation is given at all, the Court should dismiss the application for condonation whatever the prospects of success may be.

See in this regard the case of P.E. Bosman Transport Works Committee and Ors vs. Piet Bosman Transport (Pty) Ltd. 1980 (4) SA 794.

I am of the opinion that in this case there has been a flagrant breach of the Rules and no reasonable explanation has been proffered. The application must therefore fail no matter what the prospects of success are.

In casu, nothing has been submitted vis-à-vis the applicant’s prospects of success but in view of the flagrant breach of the Rules and the absence of a satisfactory explanation the application must fail.

Accordingly the following order is made.

The application is dismissed.

There is no order as to costs.