George Pondo v Allied Timbers Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/12/2024
ZIMBABWE HARARE, 25 JANUARY
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE HARARE, 25 JANUARY 2024

In the matter between:-

GEORGE PONDO AND

ALLIED TIMBERS ZIMBABWE (PVT) LTD

Before the Honourable Murasi J

For the Applicant For the Respondent

MURASI, J:

EX TEMPORE JUDGEMENT

JUDGMENT NO LC/H/12/2024 CASE NO LC/H/756/2023

APPLICANT

RESPONDENT

This is an application for condonation of the late filing of a Notice of Appeal. It is which cause that the Applicant didn’t file an affidavit but his legal practitioner did this on his behalf. The first issues raised by Respondent’s counsel is that the legal practitioner, who de… to the Founding Affidavit could not appear on behalf of the Applicant as he assured the complexion of a witness. Mr Chipere attempted to play down the issue. However, it is quite clear that Mr Chipere having sworn to the Founding Affidavit would not proceed to appear on behalf of the Applicant.

The second issue was that the Founding Affidavit contained hearsay evidence as Mr Chipere could not swear positively to the issues he raised in the Founding Affidavit. Mr Chipere made the conclusion that the issues he raised were gleaned from documents but his affidavit did not say so. This means that his evidence contained hearsay evidence. Linked to his issue is the fact that the Applicant himself did not dispose to an affidavit in the matter. The attempt to explain the issue by stating that Applicant is based in Bulawayo does not hold any water as it is clear that the explanation has no truth or basis at all.

The last issue is one which puts the Applicant out of Court. The Founding Affidavit is said to have been sworn to on 30 June 2023. The body of the Founding Affidavit shows that Applicant sought legal advice in August 2023. Mr Chipere stated that this was a typographical error. As pointed out by Mrs Matilda it is …. for the date to be inserted at the time the deponed swears to the affidavit before a commission of oaths. The present Founding Affidavit tells a lie about itself. It misinforms and misleads the court. It cannot be relied upon. This means that there is no Founding Affidavit before the court making the whole applications defective. The court makes the following order.

The application for condonation of the late filing of a Notice of Appeal is hereby struck off the roll by reason of a defective Founding Affidavit.

Applicant to meet Respondent’s costs.