Lovemore Kanjanda and Others v Suraj Mining

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/7/2025
HARARE, 16 JULY 2024 AND
6 JANUARY 2025
CASE NO LC/H/647/24
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	JUDGMENT NO LC/H/7/2025

HARARE, 16 JULY 2024 AND

6 JANUARY 2025	CASE NO LC/H/647/24

LOVEMORE KANJANDA AND OTHERS	APPLICANT

SURAJ MINING	RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable G. Musariri Judge:

For Applicant	- Mr T. Chigudu, Unionist

For Respondent	- Mr H. Chinyani, Attorney

MUSARIRI, J:

At the onset of oral argument in this Court both parties raised points in limine.

Respondent

Respondent raised a single point to the effect that there were no valid grounds for review. The impugned grounds read as follows

“The Honourable Designaged Agent Mr Marisa erred in acting as the representative of respondent in that he was the messenger of all correspondence coming from applicant to respondent and also grossly erred and seriously misdirected himself both on facts and the law when he declined to entertain the issue of terminal benefits in terms of Section 13(1)(a)(b)(c)(d) as read with subsection (2) which is the task for which the DA is employed. The Designated Agent’s action clearly shows in the cause, bias, malis and corruption cannot be ruled out.

The Designated Agent erred at law in determining a non-existant matter i.e. he issued a determination with 4 Applicants despite the fact that he was assigned to determine the matter with 5 Applicants and an element of incompetence cannot be ruled out. The matter before him had Lovemore Kanjanda, Lovemore Muchenje, Kudakwashe Makoni, Temba Tendai and Peter Mareya as Applicants vs Suraj Mine but on determination Peter Mareya was removed from the list for no apparent reason.

The Honourable Designated Agent erred at law in misrepresenting the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 Section 12 as amended by Labour Amendment Act No 5 of 2015 as well as Section 14 of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01.

Accordingly I wish the Labour Court to do the following…”

The 1st ground was impugned as vague and embarrassing. The 2nd ground was said to be frivolous and lacking merit whilst the 3rd ground was said to be vague.

Indeed the Court agrees that the 3rd ground is vague. It simply alleges that the Designated Agent misinterpreted a provision of the Act without stating what the error was. However the first 2 grounds do raise matters for review. On that basis the court strikes out the 3rd ground for review.

APPLICANTS

Applicants raised 2 points in limine. The 1st point was that V. Munyanyi had “no jurisdiction to accord an affidavit on behalf of Respondent.” The point was couched in conclusory terms without setting out the basis upon which it was made. As such the point does not raise anything for determination. The 2nd point was that the notice of response was filed out of time. The record shows that the response together with heads of argument were filed after the issue of an order by this Court condoning the belated filing. Accordingly Applicants’ points lack merit.

CONCLUSION

The application for review (without the 3rd ground) must duly proceed to its determination by the Court.

Wherefore it is ordered that

Respondent’s point in limine is hereby partially upheld so that the 3rd ground for review is struck out of the record.

Applicants’ points in limine are hereby dismissed; and

The Registrar of this Court is directed to set down the matter for continuation on the earliest available date.

G MUSARIRI J-U-D-G-E