Nesta Manyuchi v Southern African Aids Trust

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/462/2013
HARARE, 17 AND 27 SEPTEMBER 2013
CASE NO.
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT 			          JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/462/2013

HARARE, 17 AND 27 SEPTEMBER 2013			   CASE NO. LC/H/370/13

In the matter between

NESTA MANYUCHI			          -		Appellant

And

SOUTHERN AFRICAN  AIDS TRUST 	         -	         Respondent                 ZIMBABWE

Before The Honourables	 B. S. Chidziva: Judge								           F.C. Maxwell: Judge

For Appellant 	-	Mr. C. Kwaramba   (Legal Practitioner)

For Respondent	-	Mr B. Diza (Legal Practitioner)

MAXWELL F.C.:

This is an application for upliftment of bar for failure to file Heads of Argument within the stipulated time.  The notice of appeal was filed on 28 May 2013.  The response to the grounds of appeal was filed on the 11th of June2013.  On 4 September 2013 the Registrar set the matter down in terms of Rule 19 (3)(a) of the rules of this court.  Thereafter Appellant filed Heads of Argument on the 13 September 2013 out of time.  The reason given for the delay is that the record of proceedings is not complete as the transcribed minutes of arbitral hearing are not part of the record.

Whilst acknowledging the need for the court to grant condonation, Counsel for Respondent raised a preliminary issue that the appeal is not properly before the Court.  He submitted that the internal disciplinary hearing was in terms of S.I. 15 of 2006.  Section 8 of S.I. 15 of 2006 prescribes the procedure and the matter should have gone for conciliation.

In response it was argued for the appellant that the appeal was properly before the Court as the employer had directed the employee to appeal to the Labour Court.  The appeal was noted on behalf of the appellant by legal practitioners.  The question that begs an answer is whether the employer’s directive overrides the provisions of the Statutory Instrument under which proceedings were held.  The answer is obviously in the negative.

Accordingly the matter is not properly before this court and is therefore remitted back for compliance with Section 8 of S.I. 15 of 2006.

I agree. …………………………………..

B.S. Chidziva

JUDGE