Zimbabwe Farmers Development Trust v Selina Pasirayi and Prisca Chikwava

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE                  JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/120/2013
HELD AT HARARE ON 20 FEBRUARY, 2013                  CASE NO. LC/ H/475/2012
In the matter between



ZIMBABWE FARMERS DEVELOPMENT TRUST                   –           Appellant
And

SELINA PASIRAYI                              –             1st Respondent
And
PRISCA CHIKWAVA                                      -           2nd Respondent




Before The Honourable L. Matanda-Moyo, President
For Appellant      - S. Mushonga (Legal Practitioner)
For Respondent     - T. Demo and T. Mapuranga (Legal Practitioner)


MATANDA-MOYO, L.




      This matter was set down in terms of section19 (3)(a) of the Labour Court

Rules. Appellant was served with the notice of response on 20 March 2010.

Appellant filed its heads of argument on 20 February 2013 when it was already

barred. No upliftment of bar had been granted before filing of such heads.



      Appellant’s legal counsel submitted that Appellant is no longer in

existence. The organization is no longer operational except on paper. That

explains the reason why heads of argument were not filed on time. On being

asked who engaged him to appear for the Appellant Counsel responded that he

was engaged by one of the Directors a Mr Mapondera.
                                                                JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/120/2013




      Respondent’s Counsel submitted that Appellant failed to file its heads of

argument 14days after receipt of a notice of response from the Respondent.

Accordingly Appellant is barred. He further submitted that Appellant had failed

to explain a delay of almost a year. The delay is inordinate. I agree. Appellant

failed to advance any reasonable grounds on the delay in filing such heads.



      Respondent submitted that on the merits the appeal cannot succeed.

Firstly Appellant appealed on factual grounds. In terms of section98 (10) of the

Labour Act (Chapter 28:01) Appellant can only appeal on points of law. What is a

question of law has been enunciated in various cases see Muzuva Murawo vs

GMB SC27/09. Appellant’s grounds of appeal are as follows:



      “2.1 First Respondent was employed on a temporary basis from 17 February 2010 as per
      Annexure AA to the record a copy of which is attached here to at a salary of $200 only
      without any allowance.


      2.2. She was only employed on permanent basis on 20 th July 2010 on a salary of      $250-00
      plus S60-00 transport until she left on leave end of April 2011.


      3.1. Second Respondent was employed on temporary basis as per annexure BB1 hereto at a
      salary of $110-00.


      3.2. This temporary contract was not renewed at all.


      3.3. If the temporary contract was renewed it was on the same basis as before at a salary of
      $110-00 per month without anything except transport allowance of $60-00 per month.


      4.1. First and second Respondents were awarded as follows
      A (i) $250x10 months (August 2010 to May 2011) $2 500

                                                                                                2
                                                                    JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/120/2013


           (ii) $60x10 months = $600
           (iii) Grand total $3 100 less advance and statutory deduction and failure to
           give (3) months notice.
         4.2. ---------------
              ---------------
         5.1. The Arbitrator ignored the contracts of employment.
         5.2. The failure to follow the contracts of employment by the Arbitrator raises a point of law
         --------------------“



         I agree with Respondent’s submissions that the above grounds of appeal

do not raise a point of law. The above do not even qualify as grounds of appeal.

The above represents Appellant’s narration of the facts. The above do not say in

what way the Arbitrator’s decision is erroneous.



         The grounds of appeal are defective and there is no appeal before this

court.      If there is no appeal then there is nothing to condone.                            Even if

condonation is granted it would be of no consequence since there is no appeal

pending.



         Appellant has failed to explain its delay. Appellant has failed to make

meaningful submission on prospects of success on appeal.                                  Of greater

significance is that the grounds of appeal are defective and there is no appeal

before this court.



Accordingly the application fails as there is no appeal before this court.




                                                                                                          3
                                                     JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/120/2013




Mushonga Mutsvairo and Associates– Appellant’s Legal Practitioners

Chambakwe, Mutizwa and Partners – Respondent’s Legal Practitioners




                                                                              4