Kudakwashew Murwira v Muzarabani Rural District Council

### Preamble
THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO.LC/H/190/13
HELD AT HARARE ON 21ST May, 2013
CASE NO.LC/H/124/13
In the matter between:
---------




THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	         JUDGMENT NO.LC/H/190/13

HELD AT HARARE ON 21ST May, 2013	        CASE NO.LC/H/124/13

In the matter between:

KUDAKWASHE MURWIRA					Applicant

And

MUZARABANI RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL  	Respondent

Before The Honourables E. Muchawa, President

(IN CHAMBERS)

MUCHAWA P,:

Applicant was employed by Respondent as an Environmental Health Technician and was dismissed from employment following a disciplinary hearing on the 16th of January 2013 with effect from the 12th December 2011.

Applicant filed an appeal with this Court on the 19th of February 2013 against his dismissal. He has proceeded to file an Urgent Chamber Application wherein he prays for reinstatement, the same prayer in his appeal. In other words, Applicant is actually applying that his appeal be heard before the others before his.

In determining whether or not to grant the application for Urgent Hearing, the Court must strike a balance between the interests of the Applicant and those of other litigants whose cases are pending before it.

An application of this nature is literally a plea to “jump the queue”. That plea can only succeed if the Applicant is able to demonstrate that there are peculiar circumstances which warrant the granting of the Court’s indulgence. In Air Zimbabwe Holdings (Pvt) Ltd vs. National Air Workers Union and 2 Others Case No. LC/H/278/09 at page 2 Mutema P as he then was stated this as follows;

“In the normal run of the mill cases are set down on a first come, first served basis. A perusal of the papers filed of record by the parties led me to the conclusion that the Applicant’s case did not warrant urgency to have it moved ahead of others before it”.

In this case the Applicant has failed to advance any peculiar circumstances that would necessitate the prejudicing of other litigants by allowing him to “jump the queue”. It is a settled question of law that such prejudice must be justified.

I am not satisfied that the reasons stated in the Applicant’s affidavit constitute sufficient justification for the prejudice to be caused if this application is granted.

In the circumstances, it is ordered that the Urgent Chamber Application be and is hereby dismissed.