Allied Timbers Zimbabwe (Pvt) LTD V Kenneth Gumede

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT
NO LC/H/559/16
HELD AT HARARE 27 JUNE 2016
CASE NO
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/559/16
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE			JUDGMENT NO LC/H/559/16

HELD AT HARARE 27 JUNE 2016				CASE NO LC/H/REV/19/16

& 9 SEPTEMBER 2016

ALLIED TIMBERS ZIMBABWE (PVT) LTD			Applicant

KENNETH GUMEDE						Respondent

Before The Honourable G Musariri, Judge

For Applicant			N M Phiri, Attorney

For Respondent		M Mavhiringidze, Attorney

MUSARIRI J:

At the onset of oral argument respondent raised points in limine.  Applicant opposed same.  I will deal with the decisive point.

That  the application  was fatally defective as it failed to cite the labour officer

The application sought the review of the decision of the labour officer M Sabilika.  The decision was made at Harare on 19 January 2016.  The grounds for review are declaimed as follows,

“1. The labour officer grossly misdirected himself by proceeding with a ruling without having the jurisdiction to hear the matter.

2. The ruling by the labour officer is so outrageous in its defiance of accepted logic that no reasonable person would have made it.

3. The labour officer grossly misdirected himself by dealing with the matter as an arbitration instead of a conciliation.

4. The labour officer grossly misdirected himself by not issuing a certificate of no settlement before proceeding to make a ruling.”

The complaints set out above relate to the labour officer’s (L.O.) ruling and his conduct of the proceedings before him.  It is evidently necessary to hear the labour officer’s comments regarding his impugned conduct.  For him to comment he has to be cited as a party.  It is a longstanding practice, if not a legal requirement, to cite an official whose conduct is condemned.  This allows him to comment on the allegations and thus give the adjudicator a fuller picture of the case before him. For that reason I consider that the point in limine was well taken.

It is thus unnecessary to deal with the other points also taken in limine by respondent.

Wherefore it is ordered that;

Respondent’s point in limine be and is hereby upheld;

The application for review is thus dismissed; and

Each party shall bear its own costs.

G MUSARIRI

J U D G E