Denford Choto v Unifreight

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE                JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/346/2013
HARARE ON 09 MAY & 16 AUGUST, 2013            CASE NO. LC/ H/473/2012
In the matter between



DENFORD CHOTO                         –             Appellant
And

UNIFREIGHT                            –             Respondent



Before The Honourable E.Makamure, President
For Appellant      - Mr L. Chimutashu (Unionist)
For Respondent     - Ms C. Maposa (Legal Practitioner)




MAKAMURE, E.

      This is an appeal by the Appellant against dismissal from the

Respondent’s employ. Before merits of the appeal could be heard, Ms Maposa

who appeared on behalf of the Respondent raised a point in limine.



      Ms Maposa contended that the grounds brought by the Appellant should

have been by way of review and not by appeal. This is so because Ms Maposa

continued, the grounds raise procedural issues and not the substantive

correctness or otherwise of the decision being appealed against. It was also

averred on behalf of the Respondent that the grounds of appeal are vague. Mr

Chimutashu who appeared on behalf of the Appellant admitted that should the

grounds be grounds for review he will be bound by the decision of the Court.

Mr Chimutashu however pointed out that the code used directed an aggrieved

party to approach the Labour Court on appeal.            I have to comment that
                                                               JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/346/2013


employment codes were drafted by persons who may not have been legally

trained.    The Code therefore may fail to adequately provide for various

situations. It is therefore incumbent upon the professionals who represent

parties at court to bear that in mind.              All parties who appear on behalf of

litigants before this court are officers of this court. As officers of this court they

are expected to know what grounds are for either review or appeal raise in

order for them to meaningfully discharge their duties.                    The court therefore

expects the appropriate grounds to be raised in the relevant scenarios.



       The Appellant appealed to this court on the following grounds (page 3 of

the record):


       “1. Respondent unlawfully and unfairly applied its Code thereby violating
           Statutory Instrument 67 of 2012 in this matter.
        2. Allegations against Appellant are misplaced and proofless.”


       The first ground of appeal seems to be a grief against the violation of

‘’Statutory Instrument 67 of 2012.”    It is not clear what exactly was violated in the

statutory instrument.        It may well be proof of certain requirements in the

statutory instrument or indeed the procedure articulated in the statutory

instrument. The first ground of appeal is therefore vague. The second ground is

a blanket statement. The Appellant did not articulate what is meant by this

ground. Once again this ground is vague. It is correct that grounds of review

cannot be raised on appeal. However I find that the grounds of appeal as they

stand are not clear enough. Therefore I find that there is merit in the point in

limine raised.




                                                                                            2
                                                     JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/346/2013


      The Appellant should articulate the grounds of either review or appeal. In

the absence of proper grounds, the matter is not properly before the court.



In the result it is ordered that the point in limine be and is hereby upheld. The

matter is accordingly struck off the roll.


Transport and General Workers Union – Appellant’s Representative

Matsikidze and Mucheche- Respondent’s Legal Practitioners




                                                                               3