Davies Mazambara and 7 Others v Kadoma Textiles (Private) Limited

### Preamble
1
HH 591-22
HC 7071/20
---------


DAVIES MAZAMBARA

and

SAMUEL ALUFANETI

and

LOVEMORE KAPUNGU

and

NICHOLAS GADZIKWA

and

MUGARAPAZANI NYAMIDEMBO

and

KENNETH KAVUNIKA

and

DONNA MUGADI

and

PETROS NJOBVU

versus

KADOMA TEXTILES (PRIVATE) LIMITED

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

CHITAPI J

HARARE, 21July 2021, 20 July and 14 September 2022

Opposed Court Application for Registration of arbitral

award and application to file supplementary heads of arguments

K Gama, for the applicants

B Magogo, for respondents

CHITAPI J:  The applicants are erstwhile employees of the respondent.  It is common cause that the employment contracts of the applicants were terminated on notice.  A dispute arose in relation to quantification of the applicant’s dues consequent on the termination aforesaid.  A designated agent L Masvingwe presided over the dispute at Bulawayo and issued the following ruling on 10 May, 2019:

“COURT RULING

WHEREFORE, after carefully analyzing the facts the law, I wake the following ruling

That;

The first respondent is ordered to pay the outstanding balances due to D Mazambara and 7 Others a gross total of $194 220.20 according to the calculation attached to the schedule Annexure 6 into their bank accounts.

The first respondent is ordered to pay the above sum to the cited employees within 30 days of receipt of this order.

The first respondent to pay D Mugadi and P Nyobvu at new monthly rate of $1049.40 and $743.33 respectively from 1 May 2019 going onwards.

First respondent is ordered to bear the costs of this application.”

The designated agent’s ruling was upon application by the agent in the Labour Court, confirmed in terms of the provisions of s 92(5a) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01].  The applicants cited herein were individually listed in the schedule to the ruling of the designated agent which was confirmed by the Labour Court on 9 October, 20202.  The applicants then filed this application for registration of the award which was confirmed by the Labour Court.  The respondent opposed the application.  The matter was argued on 21 July, 2021 and I reserved judgment.

Before I had rendered judgment, the respondent filed a chamber application under case No HC 4052/21 for leave to file supplementary heads of argument raising a point of law.  The point of law which the respondent seeks to raise concerns the locus standi of the applicants to file this application for registration of the award as confirmed by the Labour Court.

At the hearing of the chamber application Mr Gama for the applicants submitted that it was necessary for me to prepare reasons for my ruling on the point in limine of locus standi which the respondent had raised when the main matter was heard.  To place the matter in its proper perspective, at the hearing of 20 July, 2022 the respondent raised several points in limine which I dismissed and the parties consequent upon the dismissal argued that application on the merits.  Upon dismissing the points in limine, I indicated that reasons for the dismissal of the points in limine would form part of the final judgment encompassing the determination of the merits of the application.

The request made by Mr Gama necessarily leads to the court making piecemeal judgments.  Courts generally do not make piecemeal judgments.  However, where the interests of justice demand that the court should give reasons for an interlocutory or preliminary objection made, the court will do so.  I am inclined in this instance to give my reasons for dismissing the point in limine

on locus standi and to extrapolate what the point in limine on locus standi was based on.

In relation to the point in limine on locus standi, the respondent’s submission was that the judgment sought to be registered did not refer to the second – eighth applicants.  Reference was made to the citation of the parties in the Labour Court judgment LC/H/215/20 dated 9 October, 2020 wherein the second respondent is cited as “Davies Mazambara and 7 others.”  The designated agent’s ruling also cited the second respondent similarly.  However the ruling contained a schedule listing the parties to whom the ruling applied.  The respondent argued that all the applicants save for Davies Mazambara had no locus standi to seek registration of an award to which they were not party.  The applicant argued that the point in limine had been taken without notice and that’s in any event the applicants were part of the proceedings.  The fact that they were not individualized in the heading to the application did not detract from the fact that the 7 others were listed in the schedule to the award of the designated agent.  They could be no reason to consider that anyone else other than the parties listed in the schedule aforesaid were the ones litigating and continue to litigate.  I did not find merit in the objection on locus standi in that regard.

Having made the clarification and provided reasons for my order dismissing the respondents objection as to locus standi, I consider that the respondents in case No HC 4052/21 who are the applicants in this application can now deal with case No HC 405221 in the full knowledge and appreciation of the details of the locus standi objection which was raised and the reasons why I dismissed the point.

I therefore make an order that the parties should if so advised make any submissions they wish to in relation to case No HC 4052/21 and the court will proceed to make a ruling thereon

Gama & Partners, applicant’s legal practitioners

Samkange & Hungwe Attorneys, respondent’s legal practitioners,