Christ Ministries High School v Edwin Chikuni and Cleopatra Mhariwa (N.O)

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE HARARE, 22 FEBRUARY 2024 & 7 JUNE 2024
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/248/2024
CASE NO LC/H/1057/23
In the matter between:-
---------


==============================IN THE LABOUR COURT OF
ZIMBABWE HARARE, 22 FEBRUARY
2024 & 7 JUNE 2024

JUDGMENT NO LC/H/248/2024
CASE NO LC/H/1057/23

In the matter between:-

APPLICANT

CHRIST MINISTRIES HIGH SCHOOL
1st RESPONDENT

EDWIN CHIKUNI
2nd RESPONDENT

CLEOPATRA MHARIWA (N.O)

Before the Honourable Kudya J
For the Applicant M. Nkomo (Legal Practitioner)

For the 1st Respondent B. Julajulah (Legal Practitioner)

For the 2nd Respondent No appearance

KUDYA, J:

On 22 February 2024 this court dismissed with costs on the ordinary scale an application for review, which application had been filed by Christ Ministries High School against Edwin Chikuni its former employee and Cleopatra Mhariwa the Designated Agent. Upon pronouncement of the decision the court advised the parties that they were free to request for full reasons for the decision if they needed them. The school has through a letter under the hand of its lawyers stamped 19 March 2023 requested for the reasons of the order of 22 February 2024. These are they:

The background to the application for review is that the school filed with the court an application for review against an order by the Designated Agent reinstating the employee. The employee had been disciplined by the employer following allegations of misconduct and penalised with dismissal. He appealed internally to the responsible authority in the person of one Makoni who ruled that employee had been improperly dismissed and had to be reinstated.


The headmaster went on and also determined the same appeal and ruled that the employee had to be dismissed. Faced with the conflicting orders the employee approached the Designated Agent who ruled that the employee had been subjected to multiple proceedings against the spirit of Section 124 of the Labour Act. The Designated Agent concluded that since the headmaster’s decision was made in the face of an extant decision by Makoni, the decision by Makoni had to prevail. This irked the school and caused it to file an application for review against the Designated Agent’s decision.

In order to determine whether the review is merited the court considered that the employee was subjected to 2 appeal’s tribunal within the respondent’s structures and it is clear that the alleged earlier erroneous decision was not vacated before the headmaster could give his dismissal verdict. This speaks clearly to a multiplicity of proceeding which Section 124 of the Act frowns upon. It is clear from the above facts that the intended review falls on its face based on the above facts. It would thus be an exercise in futility to grant review relief in a case which is patently hopeless as the one which the employer wants to present before the court.

It is clear that it is the very school which created problems for itself by having the 2 appeal tiers which flew in each other’s face and where one decision needed to be vacated first before jurisdiction could be assumed by the other body in the office of the headmaster. In a nutshell the court was satisfied that there was no good case for review. It is on the strength of the above reasoning that the court concluded that the review application was not merited hence it had to be dismissed with costs.

**IT IS ORDERED THAT**

Application for review being without merit it be and is hereby dismissed.

*DNM Attorneys, Applicant’s Legal Practitioners*

*Julajulah Law Chambers, 1st Respondent’s Legal Practitioner*
--- END OCR FALLBACK ---