Simbarashe Kandenga v Unifreight Limited

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT
NO LC/H/58/13
HELD AT HARARE 26TH FEBRUARY 2013
CASE NO
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/58/13
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE		JUDGMENT NO LC/H/58/13

HELD AT HARARE 26TH FEBRUARY 2013		CASE NO LC/REV/H/60/12

SIMBARASHE KANDENGA					Applicant

UNIFREIGHT LIMITED						Respondent

Before The Honourable G Musariri, President

For Applicant			Mr L Chimutashu, Unionist

For Respondent			Mr R Matsikidze, Attorney

MUSARIRI, G:

On 12th February 2013 this Court’s Registrar issued a notification to the parties to attend today’s hearing.  The notification was issued in terms of Rule 19 (3) (a) of the Labour Court Rules S.I. 59/06 (hereafter called the Rules).  At the hearing Applicant was represented by a unionist.  Respondent was represented by an attorney.  The attorney raised a point in limine.  This was to the effect that Applicant was barred for failure to file Heads of Argument timeously  Applicant’s representative stated that he had problems communicating with Applicant.  As a result he failed to filed Heads timeously.  He did however manage to file the Heads yesterday.

Rule 19 (1) of the Rules provides that where an Applicant is to be represented by a legal practitioner at the hearing, he shall file Heads of Argument within 14 days of receipt of Respondent’s Response.  It is common cause that Applicant failed to file Heads within 14 days of receipt of the Response.  However the question is whether he was represented by a legal practitioner.  He was in fact represented by a member of his trade union (a unionist).  A unionist is clearly not ex officio a legal practitioner.  Respondent’s attorney urged this Court to construe reference to a legal practitioner as including such representatives as unionists.  I agree with him that it is desirable for such representatives to comply with Rules binding legal practitioners.  They both act as representatives.  The rationale behind the Rule is for representatives to forewarn each other of the arguments they will rely on.  As such there is little need to exempt unionists from the duties imposed on legal practitioners in their appearances in this Court.  However I cannot construe the term legal practitioner as including a unionist.  The two are different as chalk and cheese. The construction urged by Respondent can only be achieved by an amendment of the Rules.  Barring such amendment, the point taken in limine is unsustainable.

Wherefore it is ordered that,

The point taken in limine by Respondent (that Applicant is barred) is hereby dismissed and;

The Registrar of this Court is directed to re-set the matter for hearing in due course.

G. MUSARIRI

PRESIDENT