Agnes Satumba & 7 Others v City of Harare

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/16/25
HARARE, 11 NOVEMBER 2024 AND
15 JANUARY 2025
CASE NO LC/H/929/24
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	JUDGMENT NO LC/H/16/25

HARARE, 11 NOVEMBER 2024 AND

15 JANUARY 2025	CASE NO LC/H/929/24

AGNES SATUMBA & 7 OTHERS	APPLICANT

CITY OF HARARE	RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable G. Musariri Judge:

For Applicant	-L. Seremani, Attorney

For Respondent	- BT Mandima, Attorney

MUSARIRI, J:

Applicants applied to this Court for joinder in terms of Rule 33(2) of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. At that onset of oral argument respondent raised a point in limine which applicants opposed.

The point is expatiated in respondent’s opposing affidavit thus,

“4. The present application is fatally defective, I am advised which advice I embrace that one cannot make an application for joinder on appeal. Once there is a decision on a matter, the remedy for joinder becomes inapplicable. Joinder is a remedy available before a decision has been made on the matter. An appeal is done on a decided matter of which no new parties can join at that stage.

I am further advised that the test in a joinder application is whether or not the party has a ‘direct and substantial interest’ in the subject matter of the action, that is, a legal interest in the subject matter of litigation. The Applicants are clearly vacillating. On one hand, the Applicants claim to be parties to the matter, see paragraph 6 of the founding affidavit. On the other hand, the applicant in this application intend to ‘join’ as parties having interests in the determination of the matter thereby contradicting themselves.

It is apparent that the applicants are already parties to the matter so they cannot be joined. On this basis alone this matter ought to be struck off with costs without going into the merits.”

In their heads of argument, applicants countered as follows,

“1 On 31 January 2023 Johnson Chirefu filed an appeal in this Court against the decision of the Designated Agent in case number LCH 74/23 styled Johnson Chirefu and 8 others. The 8 others were not properly cited in the appeal and are the present applicants for a joinder.

Applicants were properly cited when they appeared before the Designated Agent at the Employment Council and there was no issue on that score with the Respondent.

After the hearing at the Employment Council the Designated agent cited Johnson Chirefu and 8 others on the ruling and the appellants simply followed the citation of the ruling on their appeal without citing all the Appellants.”

ANALYSIS

Rule 33 of this Court’s Rules provides that

“(2) A person who has an interest in the determination of a matter by the Court may apply to be joined as a party to the proceedings.”

The rule is cast in broad terms to allow anyone with an interest to join any appeal (as in casu) Or any other matter pending before this Court. Thus respondent’s first argument that joinder is not available in an appeal is untenable. The other argument is that applicants are already parties to the matter who do not need to be joined. The matter (LCH 74/23) cites the appellants as "Johnson Chirefu and 8 Others.” The 8 others are not named in the citation to the appeal. Respondent’s claim that “it is apparent that the applicants are already parties to the matter” is not correct. It is therefore concluded that the point in limine was poorly taken.

Wherefore it is ordered that

The Respondent’s point in limine be and is hereby dismissed;

The Registrar of this Court is directed to reset the matter for continuation on the earliest available date; and

Costs shall be costs in the cause.

J-U-D-G-E