Tapiwa Denhere v Zimbabwe Electricity Transmission Distribution Company

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/643/2013
HARARE, 12 AND 22 NOVEMBER 2013
CASE NO.
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	                 JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/643/2013

HARARE, 12 AND 22 NOVEMBER 2013	    		     CASE NO. LC/H/622/2013

In the matter between:-

TAPIWA DENHERE					          Applicant

And

ZIMBABWE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION		 Respondent

DISTRIBUTION COMPANY

Before The Honourable F.C. Maxwell,: Judge

(IN CHAMBERS)

MAXWELL J.;

This is an application for the dismissal of Respondent’s appeal in terms of Rule 19 (3)(a) of this honourable Court’s rules.  The appeal was filed on 19 August 2013.  The notice of response was filed on 28 August 2013.  In terms of Rule 19 Appellant was supposed to file Heads of Argument within fourteen days of receiving the response.  This requirement was not complied with.

On 24 September 2013 Respondent filed an application for interim relief.

On 25 September 2013 Applicant filed a chamber application in terms of Rule 19 (3)(a) of the Labour Court Rules 2006, SI 59 of 2006.  Applicant prays for the dismissal of Respondent’s appeal.

On 26 September 2013 Respondent filed Heads of Argument without seeking condonation.  The Application for condonation was only filed on 3 October 2013.  On 14 October 2013 Applicant filed a notice of opposition to the application for interim relief.  On 15 October 2013 Applicant filed Heads of Argument to the chamber application in terms of Rule 19 (3) (a).  On 16 October 2013 Applicant further filed Heads of Argument to the appeal.

From the events outlined above this application was filed before Respondent filed either the Heads of Argument or the request for extension of time to file such Heads.  Rule 19 (3)(a) allows the party who is not in default to apply to the Court at any time for the dismissal of the matter.

Where time periods are provided for in a statute or legislation, it is intended to ensure expeditious resolution of matters and therefore the principal litigant must prosecute its case with due expedition.  Counsel for Respondent holds the view that Heads of Argument in an appellate Court are not due unless and until when a full record has been furnished by the Court whose decision is being appealed against.  This is to ignore the specific and unambiguous provisions of Rule 19 (1) (a) of the Labour Court Rules which states that Heads should be filed.

“(a) within fourteen days of receiving a notice of response to the … appeal ….”

The rule does not make reference at all to the record of proceedings.

Therefore since an application was made in terms of Rule 19 (3) (a) of the Labour Court Rules SI 59 of 2006 it is ordered that the appeal be and is hereby dismissed with costs.