Betty Bhobho v Cimas Medical Aid Society

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/10/2024
HARARE 17 JANUARY 2024
CASE NO LC/H/527/23
19 JANUARY 2024
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE HARARE 17 JANURARY 2024

JUDGMENT NO LC/H/10/2024 CASE NO LC/H/527/23

19 JANUARY 2024

BETTY BHOBHO	APPLICANT

CIMAS MEDICAL AID SOCIETY	RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable G. Musariri, Judge:

For Applicant	Mr E. Chigova, Unionist

For Respondent	Mr S. Alumenda, Attorney

MUSARIRI, J:

At the onset of oral argument in this Court Respondent raised a point in limine which Applicant opposed.

The Respondent argued that the application is invalid for reliance on an incompetent draft order. The impugned draft order reads;

“It is ordered that

Application for condonation for failure to comply with Rule 21(1) of the Labour Court Rules, 2017 and an extension within which to comply with the provisions of Rule 21(1) be and is hereby granted.

Applicant’s application for reinstatement under case number LC/H/899/22 be heard by the court.

There shall be no order as to costs.”

Respondent argued that the 1st paragraph of the draft order is incompetent because it does not say what happens when condonation is granted. Thus the relief sought is ineffectual. Respondent further argued that paragraph 2 seeks that the application for reinstatement of LCH 899/22 be heard by this Court is incompetent because the founding affidavit did not make a case for reinstatement.

Applicant’s founding affidavit describes the application as;

“3. Nature of Application

This is an application for condonation for failure to comply with Rule 21(1) of the Labour Court Rules, 2017 and an extension of time within which to comply with Rule 21(1) in an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of the Labour Court handed down on the 11th February 2022. (See attached judgment).”

What is apparent is that Applicant wishes to revive her application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The application was dismissed for failure to paginate the court record per Rule 21(1). Applicant then filed an application for reinstatement under LC/H/899/22. The matter was disposed of by an order by Judge Hove on 14 February 2023 which reads;

“Order

The application, being fatally defective, it be and is hereby struck off the roll with each party bearing its own costs.

The applicant shall, within 30 days seek condonation for its failure to comply with the rules of Court in LC/H/212/22 before seeking to reinstate its application for leave to appeal.”

Guided by that order, Applicant filed the present application on 6th July 2023. It is clear that Applicant sought to follow the wording of the order by Hove J. However she failed to comply with the time-lines set by the order. The net result is that her application for reinstatement was deemed as abandoned. The earlier application for leave to appeal having been dismissed it follows that there is no pending matter in which the failure to paginate can be condoned.

Wherefore it is ordered that,

The application for condonation be and is hereby granted; and

Each party shall bear its own costs.

G. MUSARIRI J-U-D-G-E