Star Africa Corporation Ltd v John Chenjerai & 22 Ors

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/320/2016
HARARE, 21 MARCH 2016
CASE NO.
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	 JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/320/2016

HARARE, 21 MARCH 2016			    CASE NO. LC/H/APP/1422/15

AND 27 MAY 2016

In the matter between:-

STAR AFRICA CORPORATION LTD			Applicant

And

JOHN CHENJERAI & 22 ORS				Respondents

Before Honourable B.S. Chidziva, Judge

For Applicant		Mr W Vudzijena (Legal Practitioner)

For Respondents		Mr G Pendei (Legal Practitioner)

CHIDZIVA, J:

This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment of this Court that was handed down on the 16 October 2015.  This Court in its judgment set aside the arbitral award by Susan Changawa.  It nullified the transfer of the appellant to Mahshe Investment and ordered Applicant to reinstate the Respondent’s pension.

The Applicant’s grounds for this application are that

There are reasonable prospects of success on appeal.

The balance of convenience or hardships favours the granting of the leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The matter is of substantial importance to one or both parties.

The amount in dispute is not trifling.

The Respondent in response told the Court that Applicant had no prospects of success on appeal because it was clear that Respondents could not sue Mahshe Investment since it is not a legal personae.

In cases of this nature it has always been emphasised that there should be prospect of success on appeal.  This was also stated in the case of Canesius Chipangura vs Environmental Agency SC 35/12 where the court held that

“… in an application of this nature, one ought to consider whether there are any prospects of success on appeal.”

During the hearing the applicant failed to establish the identity of the buyer, of its own business.  As a result there was no agreement of sale as there was no purchaser of business.  All that the Applicant said during the hearing is that Mahshe was not registered by that name in Zimbabwe.  There was no mention of the whereabouts of Mahshe neither did the Applicant bother itself to testify in support of its claims.

In view of this therefore the Court finds that the application lacks merit.

Accordingly it is ordered that

The application be and is hereby dismissed with costs.

Coghlan Welsh & Guest, applicant’s legal practitioners

Manyangadze Law Practice, respondents’’ legal practitioners