Munyaradzi Samapindu v Proton Bakery

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/606/13
HARARE ON 4TH NOVEMBER, 2013
CASE NO. LC/CON/H/46/13
In the matter between
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	 JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/606/13

HARARE ON 4TH NOVEMBER, 2013		CASE NO. LC/CON/H/46/13

In the matter between

MUNYARADZI SAMAPINDU     			–	Applicant

And

PROTON BAKERY					–	Respondent

Before The Honourable R. Manyangadze, Judge

(IN CHAMBERS)

MANYANGADZE, J.

This is an application for condonation for the late noting of an appeal.

The Applicant was dismissed from employment on 24th September, 210 after being found guilty of misconduct in terms of the National Employment Code of Conduct, Statutory Instrument 15 of 2006 (the Code).

The Applicant appealed against the dismissal to the National Employment Council Designated Agent on 22 August 2011.  The Designated Agent on 14 December 2012 dismissed the appeal as it was brought outside the 7 day time limit provided for in the Code.

Applicant then filed his application for condonation with the Labour Court on 3 May 2013.

The applicant was months late with his appeal to the Designated Agent.  He was 5 months late with his appeal to the Labour Court.

The difficulty with his application before this court is that he does not give reasons for the 5 month delay.  In it, he addresses the 11 month delay at the N.E.C. as having been caused by ignorance of the applicable rules.  Applicant says nothing about why he again delayed in bringing his appeal to the Labour Court.  The first delay was by almost a year.  The second delay was by almost half a year.

The court has a discretion whether or not to condone such delays, but it must be provided with reasons for the delay.  It then has a basis on which to exercise its discretion.  Applicant has not provided the court with a basis for the exercise of its discretion.  The 5 month delay is unreasonable, given that it is coming after another delay of 11 months.  There is no explanation for the delay.

Whatever prospects of success the appeal may be said to have, there is no explanation at all for the inordinate delay.  There is a limit to the extent the court may bend over backwards in condoning non-compliance with its rules.  There must at lease be a basis on which such a magnanimous latitude of discretion is to be exercised.  There being no such basis, it is accordingly ordered:

The application for condonation for the late noting of appeal be and is hereby dismissed.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

BY THE JUDGE