C. Ruturi v Heritage Insurance Company

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE                JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/203/2013
HELD AT HARARE ON 28 MAY, 2013                  CASE NO. LC/ H/210/2011
In the matter between



C. RUTURI                                               –         Appellant
And

HERITAGE INSURANCE COMPANY                              –         Respondent



Before The Honourable L. Matanda-Moyo, President
For Appellant       - Mr I. Musimbe and N. Munetsi(Legal Practitioner)
For Respondent      - Mr A. Muza (Legal Practitioner)


MATANDA-MOYO, L.

      This matter was reffered to me in Chambers in terms of Rule19 (3) (a) of

this Court’s rules. The Respondent applied for the dismissal of the appeal filed

by the Appellant. I noted that the appeal was dismissed on 13 April 2012 by this

Court in terms of Rule19 (3) (a). I caused the Registrar to invite parties so that I

clarify on why I should again dismiss an already dismissed appeal.



      Counsel for the Respondent submitted that subsequent to the dismissal

of the appeal, the Appellant filed an application for condonation of late filing of

Heads of Argument. Such application was filed on 25 April 2012. In the finding

affidavit by Fanuel Piki, Appellant sought reinstatement of the appeal as well.

Respondent filed its opposition on 1 June 2012 and such opposition was served

on the Respondent’s Legal Practitioners on 4 June 2012. Appellant failed to file

Heads of Arguments thereafter. Instead Appellant filed an answering affidavit

on 18 June 2012. Respondent then filed a Chamber Application for the dismissal

of the application for condonation to file heads and for reinstatement of appeal.
                                                      JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/203/2013




        Appellant submitted that he believed that he was coming to argue his

application for condonation and reinstatement of appeal. He avered that he

was not aware that the Respondent had applied for the dismissal of his

application. I indicated to the Appellant that the Respondent was not obliged to

serve such application on the Appellant.



        The Respondent submitted that there should be finality to litigation.

From the conduct of the Appellant it is clear that the Appellant is not interested

in prosecuting his appeal. I agree with that submission. Appellant was at least

supposed to prosecute his application for reinstatement swiftly to show that he

is indeed committed to have his appeal heard.



        Appellant’s counsel argued that the Labour Court is an informal court

which should not burden litigants with cumbersome rules. He argued that the

Rules as they stand currently favour the unpresented. I am not persuaded by

such argument. Lawyers are trained in court rules and are to comply with court

rules. An unrepresented litigant is not so trained hence the relaxation of rules

on such unrepresented litigants. It is true that some lawyers have in the past

not taken this court’s rules seriously. They treated this court’s rules with disdain.

This led to a rise in the backlog. Matters could not be heard and determined on

time.   I believe that lawyers should take up matters with a zeal to ensure

conclusion of such matters. Any consequence for flagrant disregard of court’s

rules by legal practitioners should be visited upon the clients. In the present

case it is the second time that the lawyers have failed to comply with the rules.

The court is extremely displeased with such wanton disregard of its own rules. I


                                                                                   2
                                                     JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/203/2013


am in the circumstances forced to register this court’s displeasure by dismissing

the application and ordering costs against the Appellant.



      In the result the application for condonation of late filing of heads and

reinstatement of Appellant be and is hereby dismissed with costs.



IEG Musimbe and Partners– Appellant’s Legal Practitioners

Mawere and Sibanda – Respondent’s Legal Practitioners




                                                                                3