Leerom Investments (Private) Limited v Takunda Cosmas Mharakurwa & 6 Ors

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/92/2014
HARARE, 2 OCTOBER, 15 OCTOBER,
21 OCTOBER 2013 & 28 FEBRUARY
CASE NO LC/H/463/2013
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	JUDGMENT NO LC/H/92/2014

HARARE, 2 OCTOBER, 15 OCTOBER,	  CASE NO LC/H/463/2013

21 OCTOBER 2013 & 28 FEBRUARY

2014

In the matter between:-

LEEROM INVESTMENTS (PRIVATE) LIMITED		APPELLANT

Versus

TAKUNDA COSMAS MHARAKURWA				1ST RESPONDENT

And

IRVINE KWENDA							2ND RESPONDENT

And

JAMES MUNYONGA							3RD RESPONDENT

And

BOTHWELL VURINOSARA						4th RESPONDENT

And

PARTSON MANYADZA						5TH RESPONDENT

And

RUSSEL CHARAKUPA						6TH RESPONDENT

And

ERICK GREM							7TH RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable Kudya	: Judge

(IN CHAMBERS)

KUDYA J:

This judgment is to decide on a point in limine raised by the respondents in an appeal which was filed by the appellant against the respondent employees. The point in limine raised is that, the arbitral award granted in favour of the respondent employees is not suspended by the noting of the appeal which was done by the appellant.

The appellant opposed the point and relied heavily on the decision in the case of Sibangilizwe Dhlodlo v Deputy SheriffMarondera& Watershed College HC-H-76-11. The respondents maintained that the appeal does not suspend the arbitral award and until a proper application for stay has been made and has succeeded, the appeal would thus be improperly before the court. After the appellant made its submission, its attention was drawn to the judgment of PATEL J (“as he then was”) in the Kingdom Bank case which was made after the Watershed case.

On resumption of the proceedings, the appellant indicated that, it had read the case of Bhaudhi v Kermark Builders HC-H-44-00 which opposed the Watershed position. It was however adamant that, since all the judgments were at the same level that is by High Court judges, one judge cannot overrule the other. To that end, it maintained that, its appeal was properly before the court without a stay order having been first obtained.

It is worth noting that, indeed same level judicial officers cannot override one another unless a superior court or higher level court gives a determination on the issue. It therefore, remains within the liberty of the trial court to follow whichever precedent suits it, until a higher level court determines the issue. A reading of the Watershed case shows that it was decided basing on the repealed s 97 Act. To that extent, the court is persuaded that, the latter judgment by PATEL J seems to accord with the correct position. This is to the effect that, an appeal does not suspend the arbitral award hence there is need to have an appropriate stay order before the appeal can be entertained.

In the result the point in limine is upheld. The appeal is accordingly struck off the roll for none compliance with the rules of court.

IT IS ORDERED THAT

The point in limine being with merit, it be and is hereby upheld with costs. The appeal is accordingly struck off the roll for non-compliance with the rules of court.

Pundu & Company, appellant’s legal practitioners