Simukayi Nyasha v Parks and Wildlife Management Authority of Zimbabwe

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE HELD AT HARARE 5 MARCH 2024
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/89/24 CASE NO. LC/H/43/24
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE HELD AT HARARE 5 MARCH 2024

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:-

JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/89/24 CASE NO. LC/H/43/24

SIMUKAYI NYASHA	APPELLANT

AND

PARKS AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY

OF ZIMBABWE	RESPONDENT

Before Honourable Mr. Justice L.M. Murasi

IN CHAMBERS

MURASI J.,

This is an appeal against the decision of the Labour Officer which was issued on 17 April 2023. The propriety of the appeal has prompted this Court to give reasons why it is of the view that the matter is improperly before the Court. The Court has taken into consideration the issue of the audi alteram patem principle and took the view that it would be unnecessary to receive submissions on the matter.

The draft ruling by the Labour Officer was made BEFORE the coming into effect of the Labour Amendment Act Number 11 of 2023. This would mean that the application of that amending Act would be in terms of section 128 which provides for ‘Transitional provisions’. The Transitional provisions relate to rulings made by Labour Officers which had not yet been filed with this Court. They provide that a ‘draft ruling shall automatically be deemed to be a judgment or ruling of the Labour Officer which for execution purposes shall be registered in the appropriate court’. The same section proceeds to give power to ‘an employer’ to appeal to this Court upon being notified of the registration of the award. The import of the provision is clear. The power to appeal only arises where registration for the purposes of execution has taken place. It cannot arise where there is no such registration. This power has been given to the employer and NOT the employee. Again, the logic of the Legislature is apparent.

I will revert to the status quo ante before the promulgation of Act 11 of 2023. The Act provided that a draft ruling was subject to confirmation proceedings in terms of section 93 (5a). Case law in Isoquant vs Memory Darikwa CCZ 6/20 clearly stated that a draft ruling is not subject to appeal or review. Having stated that the new Act does not provide an appeal by the Appellant, this means that the appeal is improperly before the Court and ought to be struck off the roll.

The Court makes the following Order:

The appeal is hereby struck off the roll as it is improperly before the Court.

There is no order as to costs.