Richard Mavhurere and 2 Others v Cresta Lodge

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/305/14
HELD AT HARARE ON 21st MAY, 2014
CASE NO. LC/H/1044/13
AND 6TH JUNE, 2014
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/305/14
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	JUDGMENT NO.LC/H/305/14

HELD AT HARARE ON 21st MAY, 2014   CASE NO. LC/H/1044/13

AND 6TH JUNE, 2014

In the matter between:-

RICHARD MAVHURERE AND 2 OTHERS 			Appellants

And

CRESTA LODGE								Respondent

Before the Honourable G. Mhuri, Judge

For Appellants:	Ms. L. Makuzva

(Organising Secretary ZCHWU)

For Respondent:	Ms S. Kadziyanike

(Human Resources Administrator)

MHURI J.:

Respondent having failed to show good cause why it did not comply with Rule 15 (2) (b) of this Court’s Rules Statutory Instrument 59 of 2006, this matter proceeded in terms of Rule 22(b) (i).

On the issue of the legal persona of the other Appellants as cited on the notice of appeal, Appellants’ representative could not make any meaningful submission indicating that the Court should make the decision on it.

The notice of appeal cites:

“I RICHARD MAVHURERE AND TWO OTHERS” (name of Appellant) it does not cite in name the other 2 nor is there a separate document listing the other two appellants.

It is trite that there is no legal persona known as two others.  That being the case, the only Appellant before this court is Richard Mavhurere.

See:	 ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY V.

CHENAYI NYAGUSE AND 12 OTHERS LC/H/128/14

THE BATA SHOE COMPANY LIMITED V

BATA SHOE COMPANY MIDDLE MANAGEMENT SC 30/20.

It was Appellant’s prayer that he be reinstated to his job without loss of salary and benefits and if reinstatement is no longer possible, he be paid damages.

To that end, this judgment will relate only to Richard Mavhurere.

Appellant submitted that as from April 2011 he was on a contract without limit of time as Respondent did not make him sign any contracts as from that date.  He relied on Section 12 (3) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01].  It is on that basis that he sought reinstatement to his original position without loss of salary and that if reinstatement is no longer possible he be paid damages.

Having considered the Appellant’s submissions, a default judgment is made on the following terms:-

That the appeal be and is hereby allowed.

Appellant be and is hereby reinstated to his original position without loss of salary and benefits with effect from the 8th of December, 2011.

In the event that reinstatement is no longer possible, Respondent is ordered to pay Appellant damages, the quantum of which is to be agreed between the parties upon failure of which either party approaches this Court for quantification.

ZCHWU–Appellant’s Representative