Christopher Chipembere v Anjin Investments (Pvt) Ltd

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/38/2020
HARARE, 28 OCTOBER 2019
CASE NO. LC/H/162/19
AND 31 JANUARY 2020
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/38/2020
CASE NO. LC/H/162/19
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE		JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/38/2020

HARARE, 28 OCTOBER 2019				CASE NO. LC/H/162/19

AND 31 JANUARY 2020

In the matter between:

CHRISTOPHER CHIPEMBERE						APPELLANT

AND

ANJIN INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD					RESPONDENT

Before The Honourable Kachambwa J

Appellant				In person

For the Respondent 			Y. Kandodyiwa (Legal Practitioner)

KACHAMBWA J:

The appellant raised a point in limine that while respondent has applied for condonation for late filing of heads of argument the respondent was in fact improperly before the court for failure to file a notice of response. The respondent admitted that they were in breach of filing the notice of response. The issue had also been raised out of court by the court through the clerk as the court wanted to know whether it could be a filing error at the court. Despite this early reminder the respondent had not applied for rectification. In fact the respondent proceeded as if all was in order.

After being put to task the respondent made a feeble application for condonation/upliftment of the bar and extension of time within which to file the notice of response. The application did not deal with all the issues that are expected to be dealt with. Indeed, how could that happen when applicant was not even aware of the provision that allows such application. This case shows lack of appreciation of the need to be diligent when handling client’s cases. This lackadaisical approach is ill advised to say the least. He puts the legal fraternity into disrepute. Basically nothing was put before the court to consider. The respondent’s so called application must be dismissed. The respondent is barred. The appeal will proceed in terms of rule 29 (b). The appellant would be given an opportunity to submit on whether the court should proceed in terms of paragraph (i) or (ii).

Order:

1.	The application of condonation is dismissed.

2.	The matter shall be reset for continuation.

Hussein Ranchhod & Co, Respondent’s Legal Practitioners’