Addmore Chipatiso v N.D.H Holdings (Pvt) Limited

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO.LC/H/123/2013
HELD AT HARARE ON 27TH JUNE, 2012
CASENO. LC/REV/H/112/2007
LC/H/123/2013
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE      JUDGMENT NO.LC/H/123/2013

HELD AT HARARE ON 27TH JUNE, 2012	      CASENO. LC/REV/H/112/2007

In the matter between:-

ADDMORE CHIPATISO				-		Appellant

And

N.D.H HOLDINGS (PVT) LIMITED		-		Respondent

Before The Honourable B.T Chivizhe: President

For Appellant 	-	Mrs. K. Magoge (Legal Practitioner)

Magoge, Mashindi and Muzenda Attorneys

For Respondent 	-	In Default

CHIVIZHE B.T.:

RULING

The matter was placed before me as an application for quantification.  The Respondent was in default of appearance on the date of the set down.  The court upon satisfaction that proper service had been effected on the Respondent proceeded with the hearing by allowing Appellant to make submissions on his claims.  See Rule 30 of the Labour Court Rules, Statutory Instrument 59 of 2006.  At the end of proceeding the court handed down a judgment in favour of the Appellant in the amounts claimed.  In so doing the court was cognisant of the fact that whether the matter had been considered on the merits of the case or not this had no effect on the status of the judgment given which remained that of a default judgment.  See Christopher Zvinavashe vs Nobuhle Ndlovu SC 40/06.

On the 23rd July, 2012 the Appellant filed supplementary heads of argument.  The heads were filed after the matter had already been heard and an order granted in terms as sought by the Appellant on the date of hearing.  The final order had however not been made available to Appellant as there were some errors in calculations in the order for which his legal counsel had been asked to rectify.  Instead of addressing the discrepancies as noted Appellant’s counsel filed supplementary heads with attachments.  Needless to point out the supplementary heads were filed without seeking the court’s leave and when the court was already functus officio anyway.  The supplementary heads of argument and the attachments clearly ought therefore to be disregarded as I hereby do.

The Applicant having made an application for a default judgment in a quantification claim the following is the order that was granted on the date of hearing;

That the Respondent pays to the Applicant the following;

Back pay to cover the Zimbabwe Dollar period that is from July 2006 to January 2009 in the amount of Z$ 7 102.200.00

The amount of Z$ 7 102.200.00 is to be converted at the exchange rate prevailing as at 1 August  2006 that is Z$250:US$1

Back pay to cover the period from February 2005 to June 2011 that is US$ 103.068.00

Legal fees and costs				US$20 000.00

Punitive damages				US$34 356.00

Damages for wrongful dismissal		2836 x 36 = US$102.096

Mazda 626 GLX Motor Vehicle Value	US$40 000.00

MAGOGE, MASHINDI AND MUZENDA ATTORNEYS-APPELLANT’S LEGAL PRACTITIONERS