ZBC v Mathias Mudzimuri

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT
NO LC/H/300/14
HELD AT HARARE 15TH MAY 2014
CASE NO
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/300/14
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	      JUDGMENT NO LC/H/300/14

HELD AT HARARE  15TH MAY 2014		      CASE NO LC/H/521/13

& 6TH JUNE 2014

In the matter between:-

ZBC							Appellant

And

MATHIAS MUDZIMURI				Respondent

Before The Honourable F.C. Maxwell, Judge

For Appellant		Mr A Muchandiona (Legal Practitioner)

For Respondent		Ms R.R. Mutindindi (Legal Practitioner)

MAXWELL, J:

This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.  Such an application is governed by section 92 F of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] as well as Rule 36 of this Court’s rules, S.I. 59/2006.  Among other things, the application must satisfy the following;

It must be on a question of law.

It must be made within 30 days from the date the decision sought to be appealed against was made.

There must be prospects of success on appeal.

On 28 February 2014 this court dismissed two applications for

Condonation of late filing of heads of argument in an application for interim relief and the main appeal filed by applicant.

Applicant had not explained the reason for the delay in seeking condonation.  In addition the Court was not convinced that there were any prospects of success on appeal.

This application was filed timeously on 6 March 2014.  The issues before this court are whether the intended appeal is on a question of law and whether there are prospects of success.  Applicant has filed a draft notice of appeal in which it alleges that this court failed to appreciate that

Applicant had given a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing its Heads of argument.

Applicant had acted without delay in seeking the court’s condonation upon realising that it had not filed its Heads of Argument within the period prescribed by the rules of court.

There was never any reckless or intentional disregard of the rules on the part of the appellant.

No prejudice would have been suffered by the respondent if the applications were granted since the main cases had not yet been set down for hearing.  Even if some prejudice would have been occasioned (which is denied), then the Court could still have cured by an appropriate order of costs.

The applicant had good prospects of success on the merits of the cases and it was therefore in the interests of justice to grant condonation so that the main cases would be heard and determined on the merits and bring finality to the long standing labour dispute between the parties.

Respondent opposed the application on the basis that applicant had failed to satisfy the requirements for the granting of the application for condonation and upliftment of bar as it cannot be granted upon mere asking.  The decision of this court was based on procedural irregularities

There is a probability that the appellate court may condone the irregularities and decide that the matter be dealt with on the merits.  For that reason I am inclined to grant leave to appeal.  The application therefore succeeds.

Accordingly I order as follows;

Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court be and is hereby granted.

There is no order as to costs.

Danziger & Partners, appellant’s legal practitioners

Matsikidze & Mucheche, respondent’s legal practitioners