Zimbabwe Revenue Authority v Evermore Manyara

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
LC/H/683/13
HARARE, 26 NOVEMBER 2013
CASE NO.
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	                 JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/683/13

HARARE, 26 NOVEMBER 2013	           			     CASE NO. LC/H/517/10

AND 06 DECEMBER 2013

In the matter between:-

ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY			             Applicant

And

EVERMORE MANYARA						    Respondent

Before The Honourable F.C. Maxwell, Judge

For Applicant		Ms Nyamutowa (Legal Officer)

For Respondent		Ms M. Ngongoni(Legal Practitioner)

MAXWELL J.;

On 3 September 2012 this Court dismissed Respondent’s appeal against a decision by the Applicant to dismiss him from employment on the basis of misconduct.  On 9 January 2013 Respondent applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against that decision.  On 11 February 2013 Applicant filed its opposition to the application and served it on the Respondent on the same date.  In terms of Rule 19 Respondent was supposed to file Heads of Argument within fourteen days of receiving the response.  That was not done.  Instead on 16 April 2013, way after the fourteen days within which Heads of Argument were supposed to filed, Respondent filed an answering affidavit.

On 19 August 2013 Respondent was given a lifeline by the Court.  The Court requested the parties to file Heads of Argument so that the matter could be dealt with on the papers.  On 23 August 2013 Respondent’s legal practitioners wrote to the Registrar promising to file Heads of Argument shortly.  Nothing was done until on 27 September 2013 the Registrar made another request for Heads of Argument.  Respondent failed to utilize the opportunity that had been availed to him to file Heads of Argument after the period stipulated in the rules.

On 15 October 2013 Applicant filed an application for default judgment in terms of Rule 19 (3) (a) of the Labour Court Rules SI 59 of 2006.  That application was served on Respondent’s legal practitioners.  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.  When the record was brought before me the application was not on the file.  At the hearing of the matter Applicant’s representative brought it to my attention.  Respondent’s Counsel confirmed the facts outlined…. by Applicant and that Heads of Argument were not filed prior to the filing of the application for dismissal in terms of Rule 19 (3) (a).

Consequently the application succeeds.

Wherefore it is ordered that

The Application for leave to Appeal filed by the Respondent in LC/H/517/10 be and is hereby dismissed for non compliance with Rule 19 (1) of the Labour Court Rules SI 59/2006.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Muhonde Attorneys - Applicant’s legal Practitioners