Christopher Chizura & 2 Others v Zimbabwe Post (Pvt) Ltd

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/236/14
HELD AT HARARE 27TH MARCH 2014
CASE NO
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	JUDGMENT NO LC/H/236/14

HELD AT HARARE 27TH MARCH 2014			CASE NO LC/H/421/13

& 25TH APRIL 2014

In the matter between:-

CHRISTOPHER CHIZURA & 2 OTHERS			Applicants

And

ZIMBABWE POST (PVT) LTD				Respondent

Before The Honourable L.M. Murasi, Judge

For Applicants		Mr B Peresuh (Legal Practitioner)

For Respondent		Mr S.V. Hwacha (Legal Practitioner)

MURASI, J:

Applicants and Respondent are embroiled in litigation before this Court.  Applicants filed this application for Interim Relief wherein they seek a stay of the arbitral award by Arbitrator A.J. Manase pending the determination of the appeal.

At the commencement of the hearing, Applicants’ Counsel raised a point in limine that Respondent had not filed any response as required in terms of the Rules.  The record shows that the Notice of Application was served on Respondent on 24 July 2013.  No response was filed on behalf of Respondent.

During the hearing, Respondent’s Counsel was given the opportunity to explain the non-filing of the response and no reasonable explanation was proferred.  In fact, Counsel was candid  with the Court in stating that he was unable to advance any explanation.

It is clear that for the bar to be lifted, the explanation for such non-compliance must be reasonable and reasonableness can only be ascertained from the circumstances of the case.  The Court is of the view that no reasonable explanation exists.  In fact Counsel for Respondent invited the Court to perhaps deal with the application on the merits.  It has been held  that in cases of flagrant breaches of the Rules, especially where there is no acceptable explanation, the Court is entitled to withhold its indulgence whatever the merits of the case may be.  ADAM J had this to say in HPP Studios (Pvt) Ltd v ANZ (Pvt( Ltd 2000 (1) ZLR 318 at p 334:

“These rules of Court are made in order to prevent delay or injustice being done owing to the delay and a bar should not be uplifted as a matter of course; it should not be done merely for the asking otherwise the rules may as well be torn up.”

For the above reasons, the Court finds that Respondent has failed to show good cause why it did not file a response and the point in limine is upheld.  In the result, the Court enters a default judgment in terms of Rule 22 (b) (i) of the Labour Court Rules.

Accordingly it is ordered that:

The arbitral award handed down by Honourable Arbitrator A.J. Manasebe and is hereby stayed pending the outcome of the appeal filed under Case No LC/H/421/13.

There be no order as to costs.

Honey &Blanckenberg, Applicant’s legal practitioner

Dube, Manikai&Hwacha, Respondent’s legal practitioners