Andrew Canivete v Moth Remembrance Cottages and Martin Manyika

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/109/25
HELD AT HARARE 13 MARCH 2025
CASE NO. LC/H27/25
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE		JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/109/25

HELD AT HARARE 13 MARCH 2025				CASE NO. LC/H27/25

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

ANDREW CANIVETE						APPLICANT

AND

MOTH REMEMBRANCE COTTAGES				FIRST RESPONDENT

MARTIN MANYIKA						SECOND RESPONDENT

Before Honourable Mr. Justice L.M. Murasi

IN CHAMBERS

MURASI J.,

This is an application for review in terms of Rules 20 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017.

The reasons for writing this judgment are the developments that took place in this matter.

The present application was filed by one Austin Ndota on 10 January 2025 and it has cited Martin Manyika as the Second Respondent. The decision of the said Martin Manyika purportedly issued on 18 December 2024 is attached to the application for Review. The application is prefaced thus:

“Please take Notice that the Applicant hereby applies for review of proceedings and the resultant determination by a Designated Agent of the NEC for Welfare and Educational Institutions, Martin Manyika.”

The Founding Affidavit is dated 11 January 2025.

There is a further determination by Designated Agent Mutsago dated 4 December 2024. He writes as follows:

“The matter ended up in the Labour Court after a determination by Hon. M. Manyika was set aside under case number LCH 527/24.

The Labour Court gave an order for the proceedings to be heard de novo before a different Designated Agent, hence these current proceedings. The court order stated the following in verbatim:

Application for review be and is hereby granted.

Determination of 29 April 2024 by Designated Agent Manyika be and is hereby set aside.

Matter be and is hereby remitted to a different Designated Agent for a hearing de novo with the claim of unfair dismissal being determined on the merits in terms of section 63 of the Labour Act.

Alternatively, the matter is to be heard de novo before the employer before a competent and properly constituted disciplinary committee as per the Code.

Each party bear its own costs.’”

Designated Agent Mutsago went on not finalize the matter in favour of the Applicant wherein the Applicant was awarded a cumulative sum of US$2969-00. In the proceedings before Designated Agent Mutsago, Applicant was represented by Mr. R.T. Masomera who was instructed by ZECMIG whilst the First Respondent was represented by Ms. C. Magoge. The purported determination by Designated Agent Manyika shows that Applicant was represented by ZECMIG whilst the Respondent was represented by Ms. Magoge.

The question that arises is whether Designated Agent Manyika could have proceeded to deal with the matter after the Order issued by this Court? Clearly not. It is also surprising that the parties would willingly submit to the process where a Court Order had disabled the erstwhile Designated Agent from hearing the matter. The Applicant is in possession of an award from Designated Agent Mutsago. The one from Manyika is a nullity. There is therefore no live dispute between the parties having regard to the fact that this Court has not been apprised of any process filed arising from the Mutsago decision. The application could not be made as the jurisdiction of Manyika had been overtaken by events. A competent court had taken away his jurisdiction to hear the matter and therefore there cannot a lawful determination of the labour dispute to be reviewed by this Court. The application ought to struck off the roll as it is improperly before the Court.

In the result, the application for review against the decision of Designated Agent Manyika is hereby struck off the roll as it is improperly before the Court. There is no order as to costs.