Cuthbert Maoko & 2 Ors v National Handling Services (Private) Limited

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/184/2014
HARARE, 15 NOVEMBER 2013
CASE NO LC/REV/H/21/2013
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	 JUDGMENT NO LC/H/184/2014

HARARE, 15 NOVEMBER 2013 &		CASE NO LC/REV/H/21/2013

28 MARCH 2014

CUTHBERT MAOKO						1ST APPLICANT

SAMSON ZINYAMA						2ND APPLICANT

MAPHIAS MACHOKO						3RD APPLICANT

NATIONAL HANDLING SERVICES				RESPONDENT

(PRIVATE) LIMITED

Before the Honourable G Musariri	:	Judge

For Applicants		C Mucheche, Attorney

For Respondent		C Mucheche, Attorney

MUSARIRI G:

Applicants applied for condonation of late filing of an application for review. The respondent opposed the application. I will deal with the matter under two (2) sub- titles namely “Delay” and “Prospects”.

Delay

Applicants worked for the respondent. They were dismissed from employment in 2011. This court’s Rules require that an application for review be filed within 21 days of the proceedings sought to be reviewed. This application was filed on 21st March 2013. There is thus a delay of at least one year and three months.

The explanation for the delay is proffered in the 1stapplicant’s Founding Affidavit as follows:

“11.1	This explains the main reason for the delay in filing an application for review. It was not a deliberate abstention from action but a circumstance that was caused by poverty.”

I am unimpressed by the explanation. Poverty may disable a litigant from engaging the services of an attorney. However, it does not prevent a party from proceeding prose that is, in person. In any case the delay is inordinate. It is said that the law helps the vigilant and not the sluggard. This appears like a case in which the maxim should be applied.

Merits

The basis of the applicants’ case is that the respondent used the wrong Code in dismissing them. They may well be correct in that assertion. However, I note that they did not deal with the merits of the alleged misconduct. They wish to reverse their dismissal solely on the technicality about the wrong Code.

In the circumstances of this case, I consider that bright prospects of success are trumped by the inordinate delays. If parties are allowed to rehash old cases on the basis of technicalities there will be no end to litigation particularly in labour matters. On the whole, I consider that condonation is unwarranted in this case.

Wherefore it is ordered that:

The application for condonation is hereby dismissed; and

Each party shall bear its own costs.

G MUSARIRI

J-U-D-G-E