Morgan Mukwekwezeke v Guard Alert (Pvt) Ltd

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE HELD AT HARARE 28 JULY 2025
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/265/25
CASE NO. LC/H/578/25
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE HELD AT HARARE 28 JULY 2025

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

JUDGMENT NO. LC/ H/265/25

CASE NO. LC/H/578/25

MORGAN MUKWEKWEZEKE	APPLICANT AND

GUARD ALERT (PVT) LTD	RESPONDENT

Before Honourable Mr. Justice L.M. Murasi

IN CHAMBERS

MURASI J.,

This is an application for condonation of the late filing of an application for review OR appeal.

The circumstances of this case, as will be demonstrated, do not require that it be set down for hearing.

The Applicant has been to this Court, the Magistrates’ Court and the High Court. A summary of Applicant’s appearances is given at page 5 of the record. As clearly tabulated by Provincial Magistrate Taruvinga, Applicant has been to the Magistrates Court for nine (9) times. He has also appeared in the High Court twice and twice in this Court. This comes to a total of thirteen times. In all these appearances, Applicant’s matter was not resolved. In most of these appearances, the matter was struck off for one reason or another. Applicant has become a frequent visitor to the corridors of justice. The frequency, however, has not achieved anything save to waste the precious time of the those presiding over his matter.

The current application is styled “Application for condonation of late filing of appeal or review.” Applicant is therefore not sure whether he intends to file an appeal or review if condoned by the Court. The Founding Affidavit leave much to be desired. The signature page shows the following:

“Date at Harare on this 30th June 2025.”

The Commissioner of Oaths’ stamp shows that the Founding Affidavit was signed before that Commissioner of Oaths on 28 June 2025. Clearly, this does not add up as the Founding Affidavit becomes defective.

Paragraph 7 of the Founding Affidavit reads as follows:

“The applicant is claiming the balance of back pay for the period 2013 to 2017 since the salary and all benefits were paid in USD currency in Zimbabwe.”

The above statement shows that Applicant has been troubling the Courts with an issue that occurred in 2017 and beyond that date to 2013. The facts show that Applicant has been unable to prosecute his cause since that time.

In Patrick Manjovha v Delta Beverages (Private) Limited SC 64/21, BHUNU JA had this to say:

“It is trite that ordinary debts are irrevocably extinguished by prescription after 3 years in terms of s 15 (d) of the Prescription Act. Section 2 defines a debt as including anything that may be sued for. That definition squarely brings an appeal within the ambit of the definition of a debt. The definition therefore renders an appeal subject to the Prescription Act.

Subsection (3) (b) however provides that if one fails to successfully prosecute his cause of action and in this case his appeal to finality the interruption shall lapse and the running of prescription shall not be deemed to have been interrupted.

As the appellant was eminently aware of his cause of action right from the beginning way back in January 2015, his dilatoriness in prosecuting his appeal deserves censure to give effect to the purpose of the Act.”

The above comments by the Learned Judge apply with equal force to Applicant’s predicament. Applicant’s cause of action as stated in the Founding Affidavit arose between 2013 and 2017 and it is evident the cause of action suffers from the malady of prescription. The Applicant’s actions in the Magistrates’ Court, the High Court and this Court did not and do not interrupt the running of prescription. In other words, once a matter prescribes, that is the end of the matter. It cannot be revived in a judicial forum. In Chiwawa v Mutzuris and Others 2009 (1) ZLR 72 (H), it was held as follows:

“The period stipulated in the Act for the extinction of debts is peremptory. It cannot be waivered. It is neither fixed in the discretion of court nor can the court extend the period for good cause shown. Like the sword of Damocles, it falls on all uncollected debts and falls on a pre-determined date.”

Applicant’s cause of action falls into the category described above. It is prescribed and cannot be resurrected. The application ought to be dismissed.

One issue has exercised my mind in this case. It is the Applicant’s uncensured behaviour of hopping from one court to another regardless of the different levels of those courts. It is evident

that these courts exercise different jurisdictions. Applicant remained undeterred despite the fact that in most cases, the applications were struck off the rolls.

The following order is appropriate.

The application for condonation of the late filing of an appeal or review is hereby dismissed.

The is no order as to costs.

Applicant shall not institute any proceedings against the Respondent in this court, on the same cause of action without leave from this Court.