Ian Kadziyani v Hygenic Services Private Limited

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/107/25
HARARE, 30 SEPTEMBER 2024
CASE NO. LC/H/928/24
IAN KADZIYANIKE
APPLICANT
LC/H/107/2025
LC/H/928/24
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE               JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/107/25

HARARE, 30 SEPTEMBER 2024                         		CASE NO. LC/H/928/24

IAN KADZIYANIKE						APPLICANT

Versus

HYGENIC SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED			 RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable Kudya J;

For the Applicant           	- In person

For the Respondent        	- W. M. Nyanhira, Human Resources

KUDYA J:

Applicant in the matter at hand on 29 August 2024 filed with this court an application which he calls an application for condonation for late filing of reinstatement. In his founding affidavit on paragraph 3 he calls it an application for condonation for late filing of appeal for unpaid salaries from respondent.

On the hearing date when the court enquired from the applicant what his application really was, he stated that, it was an application for condonation for late filing of an application for reinstatement of case number LCH 690/22 which is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

On page 13 of the record he filed with the court of a notice of appeal stamped 1 August 2022 where he says he is appealing against the whole judgment of Kachambwa J in LCH 315/22.

How he purports to do that in the Labor Court where that judgment came from, something that he failed to explain to the court. He however hastened to maintain that it was supposed to be an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and not an appeal as appears on the face of the notice on page 13 of the record.

He persists with the same error on page 18 where he seeks condonation for what he calls his appeal. It is patently clear from all the papers filed of record and the applicant’s responses to the questions he was asked by the court on the hearing date that he is not very clear on what it is that he wants from this court.

Assuming for a while that he wanted to seek leave to appeal the law is clear that such is sought from the judge who dealt with the matter to be appealed unless there are good reasons why such a judge cannot deal with the leave application. See Section 92F Labour Act cap 28.01 The order which seems to offend the applicant is on page 17 of the record. It is an order by Kachambwa J and no reason has been proffered as to why he is not seeking leave from Kachambwa J if that is genuinely his plea.

He also on page 15 files what he calls an affidavit for support of an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. There is patent confusion in the applicant’s pleadings before court such that the court cannot grant him any relief.

The respondent employer did not make matters any easier for the court. This is so because on the hearing date it stated that it had failed to file its response due to a failure to navigate the IECMS system. In a bid to achieve justice the court granted it leave to file the response so that the court could assess the matter holistically. Despite its promise to do so it has not filed such a response even at the date of the writing of this judgment.

On the date of the hearing of the matter and after the promise of the filing of the response both parties requested that the matter be decided on the papers. The papers are the ones which the court has explained about in the whole body of this judgment. It is clear that there was nothing meaningful that was placed before the court which would warrant grant of any sought after relief. The application being bad at law should therefore be struck off the roll. Since the employer chose not to file its response as it promised each party should be made to bear own costs.

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Application for condonation of late application for reinstatement be and is hereby dismissed with each party bearing own costs.