Freddy Mashazhike v Innscon Africa t/a Bakers Inn

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/106/2014
HARARE 17 FEBRUARY 2014 & 28 FEBRUARY 2014
CASE NO LC/H/615/2011
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	JUDGMENT NO LC/H/106/2014

HARARE17 FEBRUARY 2014 &		CASE NO LC/H/615/2011

28 FEBRUARY 2014

In the matter between:

FREDDY MASHAZHIKE						APPELLANT

Versus

INNSCOR AFRICA t/a BAKERS INN				RESPONDENT

Before The Honourable L Kudya   :   Judge

The Appellant in Person

For the Respondent	     S Njerere (Legal Practitioner)

KUDYA J:

This is an appeal against the appellant’s dismissal from employment by the respondent following certain misconduct allegations which were levelled against him.

Two points in limine were raised by the respondent that is one on representation and one on the timeliness of the appeal. The court ruled on the representation argument. Matter was postponed sine die at the appellant’s instance. He had indicated that he wanted to seek legal representation on the matter.

When the matter subsequently resurfaced more than a year later since the last postponement, he indicated that he was now conducting his own defence as his efforts to get legal representation had not yielded fruit. At the hearing the respondent persisted on the remaining point in limineabout the timeliness of the appeal. It is this point only which is the subject of this judgment.

The respondent submitted that the appellant timeously filed its appeal with the Labour Court at onset but fell into the error of citing the wrong party as well as serving the now legal practitioners of record for the respondent who by then had no instruction to act on the matter hence returned the process to the Registrar’s office. Effort to cite correct party and serve same was only done a year later with the attendant result that the appellant by then was hopelessly out of time. It is on this basis that the respondent prayed that the appeal be struck off the roll for non-compliance with the rules of the court.

In response to the point in limine, the appellant indicated that he could neither confirm nor deny what was being submitted by the respondent. This is so because to the best of his recollection his matter was being handled by Mlilwana a unionist who was subsequently ruled to be lacking in locus standi to represent him. To that extent it was difficult for the appellant to controvert what was said by the respondent on the timeliness of the appeal.

A reading of the whole record confirms the position as indicated by the respondent that indeed the appeal is hopelessly out of time. Further to that no effort has been made at all by the appellant to purge his contempt of the rules by seeking condonation of the late noting of his appeal. In the result, the court is satisfied that indeed the appeal is improperly before it and the appellant cannot be heard on the relief he is seeking on the defective appeal.

IT IS ORDERED THAT

The appeal being improperly before the court in view of it being out of the timelines permitted by the rules of court, it be and is hereby struck off the roll.

No order as to costs.

Honey &Blackenberg, respondent’s legal practitioners