Justin Mangena v Grindsberg Investments

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/324/14
HELD AT HARARE 6TH MAY 2014
CASE NO
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	          JUDGMENT NO LC/H/324/14

HELD AT HARARE 6TH  MAY 2014			CASE NO LC/H/544/11

& 6TH JUNE 2014

In the matter between:-

JUSTIN MANGENA					Applicant

And

GRINDSBERG INVESTMENTS			Respondent

Before The Honourable B.S. Chidziva, Judge

For Applicant		Mr T Katsuro (Legal Practitioner)

For Respondent		Mr R Marume (Legal Practitioner)

CHIDZIVA, J:

This is an application for condonation of late filing of heads of argument.

The brief history of this matter is that respondent filed its appeal on the  16 September 2011.  Applicant then filed his notice of response on the

30 September 2011.  The respondent then filed its heads of argument on the

7 June 2013.  The matter failed to take off on the 11 December 2012 because respondent had not filed heads of argument.  On the 11 June 2013 the matter was then postponed sine die to enable applicant’s legal practitioner to file heads of argument.  On the 28 June 2013 the matter was further postponed to allow applicant to file his heads of argument.

Several cases outstanding have stated requirements of an application for condonation for late filing of heads of argument.  CHIDYAUSIKU J (as he then was) in the case of Bishi v Secretary for Education 1989 (2) ZLR 240 held that

“It is well settled that in condonation of all the facts, and that in essence it is a question of fairness to both sides.  In this enquiry relevant considerations may include the degree of non compliance with the Rules, the explanation thereof, the prospects of success on the appeal, the importance of the case, the respondent’s interest in the finality of his judgment, the convenience of the case, the avoidance of unnecessary delay in the administration of justice.  The list is not exhaustive.  These factors are not individually exhaustive but are interrelated and must be weighed against another, thus slight delay and a good explanation may help to compensate for prospects of success which are not strong.”

MAKARAU JP (as she then was) in the case of Bym Traffic Control Systems v The Minister of Transport and Others HH/R/12/2001 also had this to say

“It is trite that in considering an application of this nature, the court has a discretion in the matter.  In addition to considering the reasonableness of the excuse for the delay the court also takes into account various factors including the importance of the case, the respondent’s interest in reaching finality of the court, and the avoidance of unnecessary delay in the administration of justice.”

It has also been a trite principle that labour matters should not be decide on technicalities.  Merits of the case have to be considered in this case.  It is also necessary that the matter should be brought to finality.

In view of the foregoing therefore

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT

The application for condonation for late filing of heads be and is here by granted.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

Matsikidze & Mucheche, applicant’s legal practitioners

Gwisai & Partners, respondent’s legal practitioners