Creeden Kadzomba v Zimbabwe Revenue Authority

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/183/2023
HARARE 19 JUNE 2023 3 JULY 2023
CASE NO LC/H/38/23
CREEDEN KADZOMBA
APPELLANT
ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY
RESPONDENT
Before the Honourable G. Musariri Judge:
---------


==============================

CREEDEN KADZOMBA

ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY

RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable G. Musariiri Judge:

For Appellant    Mr L. Mazhanye, Unionist

For Respondent    Ms S. Tazwivana, Attorney

MUSARIRI, J:

At the onset of oral argument in this Court respondent raised points in limine,

The points are set out in its opposing affidavit thus,

“Point in Limine
a. Defective Notice of Appeal
4. The Respondent submits that there is no Notice of Appeal before the Honourable court for want of non-compliance (sic) with the Rules of this Court.
5. The Labour Court Rules, SI 150/2017 clearly stipulates that the Notice of Appeal should be in Form LC 4 and this Form LC 4 is clearly provided for
6. The Appellant in clear contravention of the Rules of Court, went on to manufacture his own format of a Notice of Appeal, which he failed to append his signature on it.
7. In that regard, the Respondent avers that there is no Appeal before this Honourable Court and as such, the appellant’s purported appeal should be struck off the roll for want of compliance with the Rules of Court.” (Underlined for emphasis.)

The complaint about form is that the Notice of Appeal is endorsed as Form LC 3 instead LC 4. It was further pointed out that the notice wrongly purports to appeal both the disciplinary committee and appeals committee decisions. Lastly it was pointed out that the prayer failed to couple the prayer for “reinstatement” with the alternative of damages in lieu of reinstatement. Appellant’s representative conceded the errors but prayed for condonation of the errors in terms of Rule 32 of the Labour Court Rules SI. 150/17.


While the Court was inclined to condone the errors as mere technicalities, appellant has a more fundamental problem. Form LC 4 requires that an appellant must sign his notice of appeal. The appellant *in casu* did not sign his notice of appeal. His representative sought to say that there was an error when they uploaded an unsigned copy instead of the signed copy. The notice of appeal is the *foundation* of an appeal. It must be signed either by the appellant or his representative. Without a signature, the notice of appeal is simply invalid. A nullity cannot be condoned, period.

Reference:

Jensen v Acavalos 1993(1) ZLR 216 (S) where Korsah JA said that the reason why a fatally defective notice of appeal could not be amended was that: “……it is not only bad but incurably bad.”

Wherefore it is ordered that

1. The matter be and is hereby struck off the roll for want of a signed notice of appeal; and

2. Each party shall bear its own costs.

G MUSARIRI
J-U-D-G-E
--- END OCR FALLBACK ---