Dairibord Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd v Richard Gangira & Anor (T/A Taxing Master N.O.)

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE HARARE, 12 FEBRUARY 2025 & 25 JULY
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/262/25 CASE NO
LC/H/1229/24
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE HARARE, 12 FEBRUARY 2025 & 25 JULY

2025.

In the matter between:-

DAIRIBORD ZIMBABWE (PVT) LTD And

RICHARD GANGIRA

And

JUDGMENT NO LC/H/262/25 CASE NO LC/H/1229/24

APPLICANT

1st RESPONDENT

TAXING MASTER N.O.	2nd RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable Kudya J

For the Applicant	Adv. T. Mpofu (Legal Practitioner)

For the Respondent	S.T. Mutema (Legal Practitioner)

KUDYA, J:

This is a composite application for condonation for late filing of an application for the review of a taxed bill and application for the review of the taxed bill. Background to the matter is that the Labour Court Registrar taxed a bill of costs between the parties in the absent of the applicant. Applicant has issues with the taxation which was done in its absence. It therefore sought a review of the taxed bill but did so under the wrong rule. The incompetent application was struck off the roll for the reason that it had not been brought properly before the court.

In a bid to cure the incompetency, the applicant has now filed the composite application referred to above. The respondent is opposed to the grant of condonation and review relief.

It raised at the onset the point that the matter was not properly before the court as the condonation application did not seek any extension of time within which to file the review application. It prayed therefore, that, the application be dismissed with costs.

It need be noted that composite applications have been called for in a number of cases, given the fact that when the court is considering the merits in the condonation application it is at the same time interpreting the merits of the review itself. It therefore becomes untidy to severe the two.

The Supreme Court has used two different approaches in dealing with the question of composite applications .See ZAAC v Mangwiro SC11/22 and ZESA v Munyanyi SC6/24

It is settled that, when the court is faced with 2 conflicting binding decisions, it has the liberty of choosing one against the other until such time as the position is settled by a common position.

In the case at hand, it is worth observing that the case has gone back and forth on a simple issue of taxation. It is the court’s considered view that; no meaningful purpose is served by pushing the matter back and forth again as that will only exacerbate costs unnecessarily. In any event, the omission of the extension clause is not fatal to the application. See Mapondera v Freda Rebecca Mine SC81/22 on the need to avoid deciding matters based on technicalities. The point in limine being without foundation therefore fails.

On the merits plane, the excuse for the delay is understood, being that, a wrong rule had been cited when the original application was struck off. That has now been corrected by a citing of the correct rule and this puts to rest the debate about the excuse for the delay.

The merit of the case, both in the condonation application and in the review application is simply that, there are a variety of issues which the applicant has raised which rendered the taxed bill incompetent. These range from duplication of bills, unstamped bills etc. The only remedy to put all that to rest is, to allow that parties go back before a different taxing officer and have the bill re taxed properly in the presence of both parties.

In the light of the above brief conclusion, the application succeeds .The taxed bill has to be revisited. In its place, the matter is remitted for re-taxing before a different taxing officer in the presence of both parties.

IT IS ORDERED THAT

Application for condonation of late application for review and application for review of a taxed bill be and is hereby granted. The taxed bill under contest be and is hereby set aside. In its place, parties are directed to present themselves before a different taxing officer for a proper re- taxation of the bill.

Each party bears own costs.

Advocate T Mpofu instructed by T

Stansilous and Associates	Respondent’s Legal Practitioners