Gilbert Rumadhi v Colcom Foods (a division of Innscor Africa Ltd)

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE HARARE, 13 MARCH 2024, AND 27 AUGUST, 2024
JUDGMENT NO.LCH357/24 CASE NO. LC/H/95/24
GILBERT RUMADHI
---------


==============================

GILBERT RUMADHI
And
COLCOM FOODS A DIVISION OF
INNSCOR AFRICA LTD

Before the Honourable Kachambwa J,
Judge;

For the Applicant: In Person
For the Respondent: T.E. Gumbo Legal Practitioner

KACHAMBWA, J:

Background

1. On the 13th of March the parties were in court on an appeal by the applicant. The respondent raised a preliminary point to the effect that the right to appeal was prescribed as has been decided in Patrick Munjovha v Delta Beverages (Pvt) Ltd SC 64/21. The appellant conceded the point and the appeal was struck off. (In hindsight it should have been dismissed. The order was uploaded the following day, the 14th.

2. The appellant tried to come back to the court on the same matter. The matter was dismissed and he was informed that as a prescribed appeal it could not be
 1 entertained. This dismissal caused him to ask for reasons for judgment in the present case.

3. On the 18th of July 2024 the appellant asked for reasons for judgment in this case in which he had conceded the point in *limine!*. The development is in line with the checkered history of the appellant’s so journey in these courts. He has been consistently up and down the corridors. He has even been advised to seek legal assistance rather than continue to do his trials and errors.

Reasons for the Judgment

4. The determination being appealed was made on the 13th of July 2020. The appellant filed his appeal on the 8th of February 2024. Three years had since lapsed. By his own admission the appeal has prescribed. One wonders what the appellant will achieve by asking for reasons to a judgment that he conceded to. It was decided in **Patrick Munjovha v Delta Beverages (Pvt) Ltd** SC 64/21 that a right to appeal is like a debt and prescribes after three years. Bhunu J at page 5 of the cyclostyled judgment says:-

> “It is trite that ordinary debts are irrevocably extinguished by prescription after 3 years in terms of s15(d) of the Prescription Act. Section 2 defines a debt as including anything that may be sued for. That definition squarely brings an appeal within the ambit of the definition of a debt. The definition therefore renders an appeal subject to the Prescription Act...”.

5. The appellant’s appeal having been brought to court after 3 years had elapsed it follows therefore that it is prescribed as admitted by the appellant. Accordingly it must be dismissed with costs. The appellant has been warned before of the danger of trudging alone in the corridors of the courts. There is therefore no reason for sparing him of the costs.


The appeal is dismissed with costs.
--- END OCR FALLBACK ---