Mupangani Faith v Hala Hotels (Pvt) Ltd & Anor

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/781/2016
HARARE, 1 NOVEMBER 2016
CASE NO. LC/H/781/2016
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	                 JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/781/2016

HARARE, 1 NOVEMBER 2016			          	CASE NO. LC/H/LRA/121/16

AND 9 DECEMBER 2016

In the matter between:-

MUPANGANI FAITH						Applicant

And

HALA HOTELS (PVT) LTD & ANOR				Respondents

Before The Honourable F.C. Maxwell, Judge

(IN CHAMBERS)

MAXWELL, J:

This is an application for the confirmation of a ruling by the applicant in terms of Section 93 (5a) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] as amended.  The application was set down for hearing on 27 October 2016 at 0900 hours. On the day of the hearing only Counsel for Applicant and 2nd Respondent turned up.  Having perused the application, I decided to dispose of the matter on the record as some procedural issues arise.

On page 4 of the record the Applicant shows that he was made aware that the 1st Respondent is under judicial management.  The applicant also comments on page 6 of the record that the order given applies to the liquidator as it falls within the ambit of the definition of an employer as far as the Labour Act is concerned.  Whilst the applicant is correct that the liquidator fits into the definition of an employer, there is a process through which the liquidator can become liable which was not demonstrated to have been followed in the matter.

The record before me shows that 1st Respondent was placed under provisional judicial management by order of the High Court dated 23/12/15.  The order specifies, in paragraph 2 that;

“2.	All actions and executions of all writs, summons, and other process against the Applicant are hereby staged and cannot be proceeded with without leave of this Court first being obtained.”

The date of the ruling sought to be confirmed is 25 July 2016.  There is no indication that leave of the High Court was sought before the matter was heard before the Labour Officer.  In any event the judicial manager ought to have been cited in the proceedings if they had been properly instituted.

As the proceedings were conducted without leave of the High Court, they cannot be confirmed.

Consequently the following order is appropriate.

The ruling by the applicant is not confirmed.