Back to top
Zalari has raised $2 million USD in a founding round led by Nyamaropa Technologies
Labour Court

Munyaradzi Donhedzai & others v Rural Electrification Authority

LC/H/48/24

Case Details

Court
Labour Court
Date
12 January 2024
Citation
LC/H/48/24
Neutral Citation
[2024] ZWLC 48
Outcome
unknown
Case Type
Application

Bench

Presiding
L. Hove
Full Bench
L. Hove
Areas of Law
Labour lawCivil procedure
Keywords
condonationrescissionfatal defectrule compliance
Tags
condonationrescissionprocedural defect
legislation
Statutes Cited
  • E
  • u
  • r
  • o
  • p
  • e
  • a
  • n
  • C
  • o
  • n
  • v
  • e
  • n
  • t
  • i
  • o
  • n
  • o
  • n
  • H
  • u
  • m
  • a
  • n
  • R
  • i
  • g
  • h
  • t
  • s
  • 1
  • 9
  • 5
  • 0
  • H
  • u
  • m
  • a
  • n
  • R
  • i
  • g
  • h
  • t
  • s
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 1
  • 9
  • 9
  • 8
  • C
  • r
  • i
  • m
  • i
  • n
  • a
  • l
  • J
  • u
  • s
  • t
  • i
  • c
  • e
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 2
  • 0
  • 0
  • 3
  • C
  • r
  • i
  • m
  • e
  • (
  • S
  • e
  • n
  • t
  • e
  • n
  • c
  • e
  • s
  • )
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 1
  • 9
  • 9
  • 7
  • P
  • o
  • w
  • e
  • r
  • s
  • o
  • f
  • C
  • r
  • i
  • m
  • i
  • n
  • a
  • l
  • C
  • o
  • u
  • r
  • t
  • s
  • (
  • S
  • e
  • n
  • t
  • e
  • n
  • c
  • i
  • n
  • g
  • )
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 2
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • O
  • f
  • f
  • e
  • n
  • d
  • e
  • r
  • M
  • a
  • n
  • a
  • g
  • e
  • m
  • e
  • n
  • t
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 2
  • 0
  • 0
  • 7
  • L
  • e
  • g
  • a
  • l
  • A
  • i
  • d
  • ,
  • S
  • e
  • n
  • t
  • e
  • n
  • c
  • i
  • n
  • g
  • a
  • n
  • d
  • P
  • u
  • n
  • i
  • s
  • h
  • m
  • e
  • n
  • t
  • o
  • f
  • O
  • f
  • f
  • e
  • n
  • d
  • e
  • r
  • s
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 2
  • 0
  • 1
  • 2
  • C
  • o
  • r
  • o
  • n
  • a
  • v
  • i
  • r
  • u
  • s
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 2
  • 0
  • 2
  • 0
  • C
  • r
  • i
  • m
  • i
  • n
  • a
  • l
  • A
  • p
  • p
  • e
  • a
  • l
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 1
  • 9
  • 6
  • 8
  • C
  • r
  • i
  • m
  • i
  • n
  • a
  • l
  • P
  • r
  • o
  • c
  • e
  • d
  • u
  • r
  • e
  • R
  • u
  • l
  • e
  • s
  • 2
  • 0
  • 1
  • 5
  • C
  • i
  • v
  • i
  • l
  • P
  • r
  • o
  • c
  • e
  • d
  • u
  • r
  • e
  • R
  • u
  • l
  • e
  • s
  • 1
  • 9
  • 9
  • 8
  • P
  • r
  • i
  • s
  • o
  • n
  • R
  • u
  • l
  • e
  • s
  • 1
  • 9
  • 9
  • 9
  • P
  • a
  • r
  • o
  • l
  • e
  • B
  • o
  • a
  • r
  • d
  • R
  • u
  • l
  • e
  • s
  • 2
  • 0
  • 0
  • 4
  • I
  • m
  • m
  • i
  • g
  • r
  • a
  • t
  • i
  • o
  • n
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 1
  • 9
  • 7
  • 1
  • I
  • m
  • m
  • i
  • g
  • r
  • a
  • t
  • i
  • o
  • n
  • a
  • n
  • d
  • A
  • s
  • y
  • l
  • u
  • m
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 1
  • 9
  • 9
  • 9
  • N
  • a
  • t
  • i
  • o
  • n
  • a
  • l
  • i
  • t
  • y
  • ,
  • I
  • m
  • m
  • i
  • g
  • r
  • a
  • t
  • i
  • o
  • n
  • a
  • n
  • d
  • A
  • s
  • y
  • l
  • u
  • m
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 2
  • 0
  • 0
  • 2
  • A
  • s
  • y
  • l
  • u
  • m
  • a
  • n
  • d
  • I
  • m
  • m
  • i
  • g
  • r
  • a
  • t
  • i
  • o
  • n
  • (
  • T
  • r
  • e
  • a
  • t
  • m
  • e
  • n
  • t
  • o
  • f
  • C
  • l
  • a
  • i
  • m
  • a
  • n
  • t
  • s
  • ,
  • e
  • t
  • c
  • .
  • )
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 2
  • 0
  • 0
  • 4
  • I
  • m
  • m
  • i
  • g
  • r
  • a
  • t
  • i
  • o
  • n
  • ,
  • A
  • s
  • y
  • l
  • u
  • m
  • a
  • n
  • d
  • N
  • a
  • t
  • i
  • o
  • n
  • a
  • l
  • i
  • t
  • y
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 2
  • 0
  • 0
  • 6
  • U
  • K
  • B
  • o
  • r
  • d
  • e
  • r
  • s
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 2
  • 0
  • 0
  • 7
  • I
  • m
  • m
  • i
  • g
  • r
  • a
  • t
  • i
  • o
  • n
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 2
  • 0
  • 1
  • 4
  • I
  • m
  • m
  • i
  • g
  • r
  • a
  • t
  • i
  • o
  • n
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 2
  • 0
  • 1
  • 6
ai analysis
Case Summary

Key Issues

  • {"issue_text":"Whether the application should be struck off for defective relief that differs from the pleaded case","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Draft order seeks to set aside additional judgments and unspecified arbitral awards beyond the rescission application"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether failure to use prescribed form LCI renders the application fatally defective","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Application not brought in form LCI as required by rule 14(1)"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether late filing of supporting affidavits by some applicants is fatal to the application","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Other applicants filed supporting affidavits more than one year after the application"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether service out of time renders the application fatally defective","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Service effected 10 days after filing, exceeding the 5-day requirement"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case

Background

The applicants sought condonation for late noting of an application for rescission of court order LC/H/ORD/98/15, but their draft order sought to set aside additional judgments and unspecified arbitral awards. The application suffered multiple procedural defects including defective relief, failure to use prescribed forms, late filing of supporting affidavits by some applicants, and service out of time.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases
Open in Zalari →