Forgive Manyisa v University Savings and Credit Co-operative Society Ltd

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT
NO LC/H/558/16
HELD AT HARARE 25 JULY 2016
CASE NO
UDGMENT NO LC/H/558/16
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE			JUDGMENT NO LC/H/558/16

HELD AT HARARE 25 JULY 2016				CASE NO LC/H/177/16

& 9 SEPTEMBER 2016

FORGIVE MANYISA						Appellant

UNIVERSITY SAVINGS AND CREDIT				Respondent

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD

Before The Honourable G Musariri, Judge

For Appellant			F Manyisa, Appellant

For Respondent		C Mavhondo, Attorney

MUSARIRI J:

At the onset of oral argument respondent raised a point in limine.  Appellant opposed the point.

The point was set out in respondent’s papers thus,

“2.1 This court has no jurisdiction to determine this appeal as the appellant has not exhausted the prescribed appeal levels in terms of S.I. 15/06.  Alternatively, assuming this court has jurisdiction, the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant do not raise any points of law; the appellant’s grounds are an attack on the findings of facts yet there are no allegations that such factual findings were so gross as to defy logic.”

In argument before this court respondent focused on appellant’s failure to exhaust domestic remedies.  Appellant did not give a written response to the argument.  In his oral submissions he simply stated that he was advised to appeal to this court.  As he appeared in person, he was apparently unaware of the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies.

Indeed	such remedies are provided for by the National Employment Code enacted as S.I. 15/06.  Section 8 of the Code provides for an appeal to an Appeals Officer against the decision of a Disciplinary Committee (DC).  Appellant in casu was aggrieved by the decision of respondent’s Disciplinary Committee.  So he ought to have appealed to the Appeals Officer.  Further appeals lie to a Labour Officer or Designated Agent as the case may be.

Strictly speaking this court has jurisdiction to hear any appeal from a decision made under a Code as per section 92 D of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01].  However the court has the discretion to decline jurisdiction where a party without good reason does not avail himself of domestic remedies.  This is in keeping with both prudence and precedents set by the superior courts.  Respondent’s assertion that he was advised to approach this court does not qualify as good reason to shun his domestic remedies.

For that reason the point in limine has merit and ought to succeed.

Wherefore it is ordered that;

Respondent’s point in limine is hereby upheld; and

The appeal is dismissed.

G. MUSARIRI

J U D G E