Montclair Hotel & Casino v Farai Mukuhwa

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/MC/36/2013
HARARE, 7 & 25 OCTOBER 2013
CASE NO. LC/MC/53/2013
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE 	JUDGMENT NO.  LC/MC/36/2013

HARARE, 7 & 25 OCTOBER 2013				CASE NO. LC/MC/53/2013

In the matter between

MONTCLAIR HOTEL & CASINO				Applicant

And

FARAI MUKUHWA				       		 	Respondent

Before The Honourable P. Muzofa; Judge

(IN CHAMBERS)

For Applicant	-	Makoni  (Legal Practitioner)

For Respondent	-	Mr C. Mucheche (Legal Practitioner)

MUZOFA P.;

On the 25th of July 2013 I granted a chamber application made pursuant to Section 19 (a) of the Labour Court Rules.  Counsel for the Respondent requested for the reasons for the granting of the application.  These are the reasons.

The Respondent being the Appellant in the main matter filed an appeal with this Court on the 23rd of August 2012.  A Notice of Response was duly filed with the Registrar on the 5th of October 2012.  On the 27th of February 2013 the Applicant filed this Chamber application for the dismissal of the appeal in terms of Rule 19 (3)(a).  The Respondent (then Appellant) was supposed to file Heads of Argument with the Registrar within fourteen days of receiving the Notice of Response.  The wording of Rule 19 (1)(a) is mandatory and according to Rule 19 (3)(a) the non defaulting party has an option to apply for a dismissal in the event of non conformity with the Rules.  According to the Applicant’s founding affidavit it was almost six months from the 23rd of August 2012 when Respondent noted its appeal yet no Heads of Argument were filed.  This application was filed without notifying the Respondent in terms of Rule 19 (4) which provides:-

“An application against a defaulting party under subrule (3)(a) may be made without notice to the defaulting party”.

Accordingly the application was granted the appeal in the main matter was dismissed for want of prosecution.

Makoni Legal Practice – Applicant’s Legal Practitioners

Matsikidze & Mucheche – Respondent’s Legal Practitioners