Cremio Mabauwa and Others v Peace Security Company (Private) Limited

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/167/25
HELD AT HARARE 22 APRIL 2025
CASE NO. LC/H/243/25
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:
CREMIO MABAUWA AND OTHERS
APPLICANTS
AND
---------


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

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE

Held at Harare 22 April 2025

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

CREMIO MABAUWA AND OTHERS

AND

PEACE SECURITY COMPANY

(PRIVATE) LIMITED

Before Honourable Mr. Justice L.M. Murasi

IN CHAMBERS

MURASI J.,

On 12 February 2025, this Court rendered judgment in Case Number LC/H/1303/24 in which the part of the operative judgment read:

“2. Applicants to meet Respondent’s costs, the one paying, the other to be absolved.

3. Applicants shall not institute any proceedings against the Respondent in this Court on the same cause of action without complying with paragraph 2 above or filing evidence of waiver from the Respondent for such non-compliance.”

Applicants have filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in terms of section 92 F (2) of the Labour Act, (Chapter 28:01). Applicants have not tendered any evidence of compliance with the Court’s Order referred to above.

In Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] 2 All ER 567 (CA), it was held as follows:

“It is the plain and unqualified obligation of every person against or in respect of whom an order is made by a court of competent jurisdiction to obey it unless and until that order is discharged. The uncompromising nature of the obligation is shown by the fact that it even extends to where the person affected believes it to be irregular or even void.”


In IN RE: Prosecutor-General of Zimbabwe On His Constitutional Independence And Protection From Direction And Control CCZ 13/17, PATEL JCC had this to say at page 13 of the cyclostyled judgment:

“For the Applicant to refuse to obey court orders and then to avoid answering the critical question as to why he has not, is tantamount to exhibiting flagrant contempt of this Court. This type of contempt in facie curiae cannot be countenanced by the Court. We have a duty to protect our processes from abuse and scandalous impunity.”

The above cases clearly apply to the Applicants. Applicants have not attempted to comply with the Court Order and they seek to be heard by the same Court whose Order they disregard with impunity. As stated in the above cases, this Court has a duty to protect its processes to protect it from abuse. The application has to be struck off the roll for the reason of non-compliance with an extant Court Order.

It is therefore ordered that:

1. The application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is hereby struck off the roll by reason of non-compliance with an extant Court Order.
2. There is no order as to costs in the present application.
--- END OCR FALLBACK ---