J Mbonyeya & 242 Others v Marange Resources

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/148/14
HELD AT HARARE 10TH MARCH 2014
CASE NO
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	JUDGMENT NO LC/H/148/14

HELD AT HARARE 10TH MARCH 2014			CASE NO LC/H/158/14

& 28TH MARCH 2014

In the matter between:-

J MBONYEYA & 242 OTHERS				Applicants

And

MARANGE RESOURCES					Respondent

Before The Honourable F.C. Maxwell, Judge

(IN CHAMBERS)

MAXWELL, J:

This is an ex-parteapplication for an urgent hearing of an appeal filed on 21 February 2014.  Applicants were employed by Respondent.  It is alleged that Respondent sought to unilaterally transfer them to National Eye Security (Pvt) Ltd without  compliance with section 16 of the Labour Act.  The transfer was challenged before an Arbitrator who quashed it and ordered Respondent to reinstate Appellants or pay damages in lieu of reinstatement.  Respondent appealed but the appeal was dismissed with costs on a higher scale on

11 July 2012.  Respondent did not comply with the order of reinstatement and did not pay damages.  Applicants had their damages quantified.  Respondent alleged that it did not owe Applicants any money for arrear salaries or damages in lieu of reinstatement after paying back pay.  The matter was referred to compulsory arbitration and the Arbitrator ruled in favour of the Applicants.   Respondent noted an appeal on 21 February 2014.

Applicants are basing their application for an urgent hearing on the following facts among others

they have endured untold poverty and suffering as a result of the illegal transfer by Respondent and Respondent’s failure to pay their salaries or damages in lieu of reinstatement; and

they are from a highly sensitive security back ground as some of them were formerly employed by the Zimbabwe Republic Police, Zimbabwe National Army and other state security departments.

In determining whether or not to grant this application, the Court must

strike a balance between the interests of the Applicants and those of other litigants whose cases are pending before it.  An application of this nature is literally a plea to jump the queue.  MAKARAU JA (as she then was) stated in the case of Document Support Centre (Pvt) Ltd v T.P. Mapuvire HH-117-2006

“The test to be employed appears to me to be an objective one where the court has to be satisfied that the relief sought is such that it cannot wait without irreparably prejudicing the legal interest concerned.”

See also Madzivanzira& Others v Dexprint Investment (Pvt) Ltd &Another HH-145-2002.

Applicants have not demonstrated any peculiar circumstances which warrant the granting of the Court’s indulgence for them to jump the queue.

I do not find merit in this application and accordingly dismiss it.