Zimplats Employees (Residing AT TURF Village) V Zimbabwe Platinum Mines

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE                             JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/179/2013
HELD AT HARARE ON 14 MAY, 2013                             CASE NO. LC/ H/395/2011
In the matter between


ZIMPLATS EMPLOYEES (RESIDING AT TURF VILLAGE) – Applicants
And

ZIMBABWE PLATINUM MINES                                               –      Respondent




Before The Honourable L. Matanda-Moyo, President


(IN CHAMBERS)


MATANDA-MOYO, L.

      This is an application for condonation for late noting of an application for

leave to appeal against my judgment of 17 August 2012. Such application was

filed on 25 April 2013, some 8months late. Applicant explains their delay as

follows;

“That they were negotiating an out of court settlement with the Respondent.

Failure to reach an out of court settlement has now prompted the Applicants to

make this application.”



      Applicant submitted that they have prospects of success on appeal. For

that proposition they referred me to the purported grounds of appeal to the

Supreme Court which are as follows;


      “1) that the Labour Court erred on a question of law by construing “Turf village as property which
      does not fall under section 23 of the Mining Industry (General Conditions) SI150 of 1990.
                                                                    JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/179/2013


      2) The court a quo erred at law in finding that section 24 of the said SI 152 of 1990 does not apply in
      this case.
      3) The court a quo erred at law in finding that on mine property necessarily refers to property at
      the mine vicinity only”



      Firstly Applicant must reasonably explain its delay. Applicant submitted

that the cause of its delay in filing the appeal was that the parties were

negotiating an out of court settlement.                   Such reasoning is not reasonable.

There already existed a judgment of court. Once a judgment is out it becomes

operative.     It can only be suspended by noting an appeal against such

judgment.          A settlement is reasonably pursued before a court issues its

judgment. Page 14 of the record which comprise minutes of a meeting of the

Works Council of 10 October 2012 under “Rentals and Services” it is written;


      “4.3. Rental and Services
      --------. The judgment handed down requires that individual resident pay their utility bills to
      ZESA and MNRDC. According to the GM-HR brief the company has decided to soften the
      impact of the judgment by offering the encashment of leave days and loans----“



      In subsequent meetings the parties agreed that the Applicant would not

appeal against the judgment.               The question is whether such explanation is

reasonable. It is not reasonable. The law is quite clear that any party who is

dissatisfied with this court’s decision must within 21 days note an appeal to the

Supreme Court with leave of this Court. The Applicant decided not to appeal.

The basis of the negotiations were that Applicant’s members would sell their

leave days to the Respondent. It is Applicant’s members who were still paying

for the bills. It is not that Respondent had agreed to take over the bills. In other




                                                                                                           2
                                                   JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/179/2013


words the agreement between the parties did not change the colour of the

judgment.



       The law helps the vigilant and not the slow ones. Applicants were not

vigilant in defending their rights.     They were aware of the time limits but

decided to find ways of effecting my judgment. When such ways failed it is not

reasonable explanation for the delay.



       Applicant submitted that it has good prospects of success on appeal. In

support of that proposition Applicant referred me to the grounds of appeal

which I have quoted above. Grounds of appeal and prospects of success are

two different concepts. Applicant in its founding affidavit had to show how this

court erred in arriving at such decision. Mere bold statements do not suffice. In

an application of this nature, such application succeeds or falls on the founding

affidavit.



       Accordingly the Applicant has failed to reasonably explain its delay.

Applicant has also failed to show that it has good prospects of success on

appeal. The application for condonation for late noting of an application for

leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is dismissed with no order as to costs.




                                                                               3
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/179/2013




                         4