The Trustees for the Time Being of Zimbabwe Housing Projects Trust v Malcom. T. Murapa

### Preamble
1
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT No: LC/H/354/25
HELD AT HARARE
CASE No: LC/H/536/25
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE HELD AT HARARE

In the matter between:-

JUDGMENT No: LC/H/354/25

CASE No: LC/H/536/25

THE TRUSTEES FOR THE TIME BEING OF ZIMBABWE	APPLICANT HOUSING PROJECTS TRUST

Versus

MALCOM. T. MURAPA	RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

Harare 10 September 2025

Before Honourable Mrs Justice Makamure J Honourable Mr Justice Jaravani J

For the Applicant: Mr Sikoti: Official Representative Respondent: In Person

Opposed Application for Rescission of Default Judgment.

JARAVANI J: This is an application for rescission of a default judgment which was granted by this Court following the Applicant’s default on an application for condonation of late filing of an application for review.

The Application cites Rule 40 of the Court Rules in its title page although it is also premised on section 92C of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] which provides for rescission or alteration of decisions by this Court.

The Application was opposed by the Respondent in terms of the papers filed of record. The Respondent never raised a point in limine in his opposing papers only to raise the issue that the Applicant is in contempt of Court following a successful registration of the arbitral award in issue by the Applicant at the Magistrates Court sitting at Harare in Case No HREC C-G1483/25 at the time of the physical hearing of this matter in Court.

The Court Order and the Warrant of Execution for the said award was physically produced in Court by the Respondent without any objection from the Applicant and they are pending uploading of record onto the Court portal.

The Applicant opposed the Respondent’s point by alleging that it is an afterthought which was not included in the Respondent’s papers and a party’s case stands or falls on the papers in application proceedings.

It is the Court’s view that the Applicant is in contempt of court and does not deserve the Court’s audience in the current situation for the following reasons:-

It is a point of law whether a party is in contempt of Court. A point of law can be raised at any stage of the proceedings- Muchakata v Netherburn Mine 1996(1) ZLR 153(S). Contempt of Court involves the wilful or deliberate failure to abide by court process or orders.

It is common cause from the conversation between the Applicant’s Representative and the Court that there is an extant arbitral award in favor of the Respondent which award has been registered at the Magistrates Court and the Applicant is aware of the registration Order but it has not complied with the Order. The execution process could not satisfy the award as the proceeds of the execution could not attain the awarded amount.

There is no legal justification for the Applicant’s non-compliance with the Award because an application for rescission of judgment does not stay the operation of the award or judgment sought to be rescinded without a concomitant application for interim relief- section 92(3) of the Labour Act. The Applicant never sought an interim determination suspending the execution or operation of the award so it is in contempt of Court and its hands are dirty.

In the premises, the Court Orders that the preliminary point by the Respondent is hereby upheld.

Consequently, matter is hereby struck off the roll.

Costs shall follow the cause. The Applicant shall pay the Respondent’s costs of this application.

MAKAMURE J

JARAVANI J