UNKNOWN (applicant name not provided in document)

### Preamble
1
Pa
ge
THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/64/24
---------


Before the Honourable L. Hove, Judge:

For applicant  :	In Person

For respondent :	Mrs. S. Ndewere

This is an application for reinstatement of an appeal, that is, case number LC/H/497/22. Background

The applicant explains in his founding affidavit that the appeal was deemed abandoned on 11 August 2022. The registrar had sent a notice advising that the matter had been deemed abandoned for failure by the applicant and his lawyers to file heads of arguments.

The applicant stated that heads had to be filed within 10 days from receiving the notice of response which was received on 23 July 2022. The applicant states that he had last communicated with his erstwhile legal practitioners sometime in July 2022. No further communication was made with his lawyers until 11 August when the registrar wrote notifying that the case had been deemed abandoned. This did not move the applicant nor his chosen lawyer to take any action. The applicant then stated that it was not until 25 October 2022 when he visited the registry that he realized that the matter had been abandoned in August 2022.

The applicant then applied for condonation for the late filing and extension of time within which to file the heads of arguments. The application was obviously improper under those circumstances. It was struck off as being improperly before the court.

The applicant then filed this application for reinstatement of his original appeal, that is LC/H/497/22 which was abandoned on 11 August 2022. This was now in February of 2023, some 7 months after the matter had been abandoned.

Preliminary point

The respondent objected to this application on the basis that it was out of time. In terms of Rule 46(b) of the Labour Court Rules, 2017 (the rules) which provide that when a matter is deemed abandoned as was the case in casu, the applicant is supposed to file an application for reinstatement within twenty- one days. The applicant had failed to seek condonation for the late filing of the application for

reinstatement. The application for reinstatement was thus improperly before the court and the respondent argued that it ought to be struck off.

The applicant then applied for condonation for failing to seek reinstatement within 21 days.

He submitted that the delay was caused by the fact that he was pursuing the other application for condonation and extension of time within which to file his heads of argument. That application was dismissed for being improperly before the court.

This is obviously not a good reason for delay. It is a policy of law that there must be a finality to litigation a litigant cannot pursue one improper application after another without seeking to familiarize himself with the rules. This causes prejudice on the other side which through no fault of its own will have to be put out of pocket by defending the improper applications. See Ndebele v Ncube 1992 (1) ZLR 288 which states that;

“it is the policy of law that there should be finality in litigation.”

It was further stated in the same court that legal practitioners should be reminded of the old adage vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt roughly translated; the law will help the vigilant but not the sluggard.

The applicant failed to address the merits of his application in so far as they related to the reasons of failing to file his heads of arguments when the appeal was dismissed. The applicant blames his erstwhile legal practitioners. He fails to attach an affidavit from his erstwhile legal practitioners explaining the reasons for the default. That default remains unexplained.

The length of delay is inordinate. The rules allow for 21 days to apply for reinstatement but no application was made from 11 August when the case was abandoned to February 2023 when the applicant filed the application for reinstatement without even seeking condonation for his failure to act within the prescribed 21 days. The respondent had to jog his mind during the proceedings for him to finally realize that he had to have sought condonation first. The delay is ordinate it reveals a careless and a negligent attitude on the part of the applicant who did not bother to familiarize himself with the rules as a self-actor and even when he was represented, his chosen attorney failed to comply with the rules.

The applicant had to show good cause, he had to give a reasonable explanation for the default. The reasons given were not reasonable and his prospects of success are poor. In the result the application for condonation being without merit, must fail and the following order is made.

Order:

The application for condonation has no merit and it be and is hereby dismissed.

The application for reinstatement is thus improperly before the court and it be and is hereby dismissed.

Each party will bear its own costs.