Edson Nyakudanga v Cairns Holdings Limited

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/33/2021
HARARE, 12 MARCH 2021 &
CASE NO LC/H/APP/558/19
9 APRIL 2021
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	   JUDGMENT NO LC/H/33/2021

HARARE, 12 MARCH  2021 &			    CASE NO LC/H/APP/558/19

9 APRIL  2021

In the matter between:-

EDSON NYAKUDANGA				APPLICANT

And

CAIRNS HOLDINGS LIMITED			RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable Kudya J

For the Applicant		In Person

For the Respondent		D. Peneti  (Legal Practitioner)

Kudya, J:

This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Leave is being sought by the employee in a labour dispute between him and the employer.

The employee had approached the labour court on review and appeal challenging his dismissal from work on allegations of certain misconduct. His review and appeal were unsuccessful.  He now intends to approach the Supreme Court on appeal against the labour court’s decision confirming his dismissal.  It is the intended Supreme Court appeal which has caused the employee to seek this court’s leave so that he can approach the Supreme Court	on appeal.

It is settled law that success in a leave application is premised primarily on two tenets that is point of law and prospects of success See S. v. Mutasa 1988 92) ZLR 4(s). Each of these tenets is discussed below.

Point of law

The definition of a point of law as opposed to a point of fact is aptly set out in a number of cases among them. See Sable Chemicals v Easterbrook SC-18-10.

A reading of the grounds intended to be taken on appeal by the employee do not set out any point of law to be decided by the Supreme Court. All the attacks are purely factual and none of them satisfies the test of a point of law set out in Sable (supra). The court is therefore satisfied that no good case for leave to appeal has been made out on the point of law plane. The application should therefore fail on this account.

Prospects of success

Under this heading the employee regurgitates the arguments which he presented before the labour court and which arguments did not find favour with the labour court. He simply restates his argument that the disciplinary committee was biased and that he did not access the reasons for the decision timeously. He says that the reasons were a mere adoption of the shop floor disciplinary body reasons. The recommendations by the labour court that the Code of Conduct be amended meant that he was disciplined under a nullity.  A reading of the labour court judgment intended to be taken up on appeal speaks to each of these titles with sufficient detail and clarity. The court is of the view that no meaningful purpose would be served by repeating the same here.

It is clear that no good case for leave has been made out on the prospects plane.  There is nothing outside the labour court’s reasoning in its judgment which the court is persuaded would warrant the Supreme Court’s interference.  In the ultimate the court is satisfied that in the absence of prospects the leave application should fail.

IT IS ORDERED THAT

Application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court being without merit in its entirety it be and is hereby dismissed.

Each party  bears own costs.

Dube,Manikai and Hwacha,  respondent’s legal practitioner