Calisto Maniki v CMED (Pvt) Ltd

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/34/2013
HELD IN HARARE, FEBRUARY 8, 2013
CASE NO. LC/H/165/09
In the Matter Between
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE 	JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/34/2013

HELD IN HARARE, FEBRUARY 8, 2013		CASE NO. LC/H/165/09

In the Matter Between

CALISTO MANIKI					APPLICANT

And

CMED (PVT) LTD				       	RESPONDENT

Before The Honourable E. Makamure         : President

For The Applicant     		: Miss R.R. Mutindindi (Legal Practitioner)

For The Respondent  		: Mr T.K. Hove (Legal Practitioner)

MAKAMURE E.,

Before the merits of this application could be heard, Mr T.K. Hove who appeared on behalf of the respondent raised a preliminary issue.  Mr Hove submitted that the parties are wrongly cited.  The wrong citation was brought to the attention of the applicant and his legal practitioners.  This was not corrected.  Mr Hove therefore applied for the Court to dismiss the application before the Court for lack of clarity.  Ms Mutindindi who appeared for the respondent conceded that the parties were wrongly cited.  However, after making that noble concession, Ms Mutindindi proceeded to submit that it is not a major problem.  Ms Mutindindi made that submission arguing that this is technical.  It is trite that labour issues should not be resolved on the basis of technicalities.  This does not mean that the technicalities must be ignored.  No.  Such technicalities must be corrected (See Dalny Mine v Banda 1999(1) ZLR 220) (Dalny Mine).  The Labour Court is a Court of record.  It has rules which have to be complied with.  Proper citation of the parties is imperative so that the Court is properly informed.  It would be wrong to extend the principle enunciated in the Dalny Mine case (above) to include situations where parties are not properly cited and expect the court to proceed.  The Court will not ignore this especially where this has been brought to the attention of legal practitioners.  Besides, if technicalities are not corrected, proceedings will continue in a very haphazard fashion.  This is likely to cause confusion instead of clarity in the manner in which labour matters are resolved in this Court.  This would be undesirable.   Legal practitioners are officers of the Court.  Their role, apart from representing their clients, is to assist the Court so that the Court can make an informed decision.  Wrong citation of parties is not a minor issue.  That would mislead the Court.  Asserting that “minor” issues should be ignored without correcting them is an approach which should be discouraged, especially among legal practitioners.

In the present case, Mr Maniki, the applicant started off as a self actor.  He eventually instructed legal practitioners.  Thus the applicant’s current legal practitioners should make the proper applications to amend if necessary or simply correct what needs to be corrected.

Mr Hove has asked for dismissal of the application with costs de bonis propriis.  His reason for asking costs on a higher scale is that apart from failing to cite the parties properly, the applicant’s legal practitioners did not file a draft order.  Mr Hove’s reasons for asking for costs on a higher scale have been noted.  However it is my considered view that at this point in time the papers be put in order.  This should help to have the matter reach finality.  Costs will therefore be granted on the ordinary scale.

The applicant’s legal practitioners are accordingly ordered to ensure that the parties are properly cited and file such other papers to ensure that the appropriate application and prayer are in order before the matter can be heard.

In view of the foregoing the point in limine is upheld with costs.

Ms R.R. Mutindindi Legal Practitioners, for the Applicant.

T.K. Hove and Partners, Legal Practitioners for the Respondent.