National Employment Council for Welfare and Educational Institutions v R. Mungomezi N.O. & 3 Ors

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LCH/151/23
HARARE 16 MAY, 2023
CASE NO. LCH12/23
AND 22 MAY 2023
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	JUDGMENT NO. LCH/151/23 HARARE 16 MAY, 2023	CASE NO.LCH12/23

AND 22 MAY 2023

NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT COUNCIL FOR

WELFARE AND EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS	APPLICANT

Versus

R. MUNGOMEZI N.O.	1ST RESPONDENT WELFARE AND EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION	2ND RESPONDENT

ZIMBABWE EDUCATIONAL, HEALTH, SCIENTIFIC

SOCIAL AND CULTURAL WORKERS UNION	3RD RESPONDENT

NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT COUNCIL FOR ZIMBABWE SCHOOLS DEVELOPMENT

ASSOCIATION AND COMMITTEES	4TH RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable Kudya J;

For the Applicant	- Mr G. Sithole (Legal Practitioner) For the 1st Respondent - No appearance

For the 2nd Respondent - Mr T.F. Madzimure (Unionist) For the 3rd Respondent - Mr S.N. Mutindindi (Unionist) For the 4th Respondent - Mr M. Nkomo (Legal Practitioner)

KUDYA J:

In an application for the review of the decision of the Registrar of Labour the 4th respondent raised a point in limine to the effect that it had been improperly joined to the proceedings. In response to that the applicant mentioned that there was no misjoinder taking into account the fact that it was

2

JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/…./23

CASE NO. LC/H/12/23

the objection by the 4th respondent at the Registrar which birthed the Registrar’s refusal to register applicant’s CBA. It is clear from the record that had it not been for the objections by the 4th respondent the applicant’s CBA would have been registered by the Registrar. The 4th respondent in its submissions stated clearly that it would not have objected to the order sought by the applicant but was irked by its joinder to the proceedings and the applicant’s prayer that if it opposed the grant of review relief then applicant would pray that costs be awarded against it. What was clear from submissions by applicant and the 4th respondent was that were it not for 4th respondent’s objections the matter would not have been at the Labour Court. In the court’s view it is clear that on account of its objection at the Registrar’s the 4th respondent is an interested party hence was properly joined to the proceedings.

The objection being without merit should therefore fail. In the same spirit on account of the submission by the 4th respondent that it would not oppose the relief sought by the applicant and also on account of the fact that 2nd and 3rd respondents did not oppose the relief sought it became patently clear that the review application was well placed and had to be granted. Similarly there being no opposition on the merits from 4th respondent it would be prudent that each party be made to bear own costs,

In the result the review is granted as prayed for.

IT IS ORDERED THAT

Point in limine vis misjoinder being without substance it be and is hereby dismissed.

Application for review being merited it be and hereby succeeds.

Each party bears own costs.

Kantor and Immerman, Applicant’s Legal Practitioners

Donsa-Nkomo and Mutangi Attorneys – 4th Respondent Legal Practitioners