Tafadzwa Tokwe v Celeste Tissue Products (Pvt) Ltd

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/678/14
HELD IN HARARE, 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2014
CASE NO. LC/APP/H/260/14
AND 10th OCTOBER, 2014
X REF LC/H/469/14
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/678/14
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE 	          JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/678/14

HELD IN HARARE, 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2014                  CASE NO. LC/APP/H/260/14

AND 10th OCTOBER, 2014				X REF LC/H/469/14

TAFADZWA TOKWE		        				APPLICANT

CELESTE TISSUE PRODUCTS (PVT) LTD		RESPONDENT

Before The Honourable G. Musariri:	Judge

For Applicant :	Mr M. Chimhuka, Unionist

For Respondent:  	Ms G. Ncube, Attorney

MUSARIRI, G:

Applicant applied for condonation of late noting of a cross-appeal. Respondent opposed the application.

Delay

The decision sought to be appealed was made on 6th May 2014. This application is dated 19th June 2014. The Court’s Rules, in particular Rule 15(1) provide for an appeal within twenty-one (21) days. Thus the extent of the delay in casu is about ten (10) days. The extent of delay is not inordinate.

An explanation was tendered for the delay. Soon after the decision sought to be appealed, the parties engaged in discussions to settle matter. Letters have been filed of record as proof. They show the offers and counter-offers made. Unfortunately the parties failed to settle. It was then that Applicant brought this application. Respondent argued that despite the negotiations, Applicant should have protected his position by appealing within the time limits. Applicant countered that he assumed both parties intended to settle matter without recourse to this Court. I consider Applicant’s explanation as plausible particularly in view of the fact that he was not represented by an attorney.

Prospects

Applicant was dismissed from employment by Respondent on grounds of misconduct. The offence was divulging confidential information to a third party. Applicant’s defence was that the information was in the public domain and thus it was not confidential. He further argued that no prejudice ensued because the third party was a resident of Malawi intending to do business in Tanzania Thus there was no danger of the third party gaining an advantage over Respondent’s business operations in Zimbabwe. I will not analyse the Applicant’s defence save to say he has an arguable case.

All in all I consider that a good case has been set out for the condonation sought.

Wherefore it is ordered

That the application for condonation is hereby granted;

That Applicant shall file and serve his cross-appeal within the next fifteen (15) days; and

That each party shall bear its own costs.

G. Musariri

J U D G E