Alouis Mutongoreya v Aviation Ground Service

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/444/14
HELD AT HARARE 11TH JULY 2014
CASE NO
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	          JUDGMENT NO LC/H/444/14

HELD AT HARARE 11TH JULY 2014			CASE NO LC/APP/H/138/14

18TH JULY 2014						X REF LC/H/984/12

In the matter between:-

ALOUIS MUTONGOREYA				Applicant

And

AVIATION GROUND SERVICE			Respondent

Before The Honourable E Muchawa, Judge

For Appellant		C Chisasa (Trade Unionist)

For Respondent		A Muchadehama (Legal Practitioner)

MUCHAWA, J:

This is an application for dismissal of an application for rescission of an order of this court, in terms of Rule 19 (3) (a) of the Labour Court Rules S.I. 59 of 2006.

Respondent filed an application for rescission of judgment in the name of its Human Resources Manager on the 9 September 2013.  Applicant duly filed its response to that application on the 8 January 2014 and served it on respondent’s legal practitioners of record in the application for quantification which is also before this court.

The application for rescission of judgment has not been set down for hearing in terms of Rule 21 of this Court’s Rules S.I. 59 of 2006.

It is applicant’s allegation that respondent, by failing to file heads of argument in respect to the application for rescission, yet they will be represented by a legal practitioner in that matter, have defaulted and the application for rescission of judgment stands to be dismissed in terms of Rule 19 (3) (a).

On the other hand my attention was drawn to the application for rescission of judgment,  by respondent’s counsel.  I note that the application was done by respondent through its human resources manager, one Mr Jere who deposed to an affidavit in support of the application.  The address given in that application is that of respondent itself at Harare International Airport and not that of its legal practitioners.  It was contended that respondent was not legally represented in that particular application and would therefore not be obliged to file heads of argument.

Applicant’s further argument that the application is not in the prescribed form does point to the fact of a self actor as borne out of the papers before me.

It is my finding therefore that respondent was not represented by a legal practitioner in the particular application for rescission of judgment.  It does not matter that legal practitioners may have been acting for respondent in other matters between the parties which are before this court.  There was therefore no obligation to file heads of argument.

Accordingly;

The application being devoid of merit it be and is hereby dismissed with costs.

Mbidzo, Muchadehama & Makoni, respondent’s legal practitioners