Cleopas Zwimba v Maranatha Ferrochrome Private Limited & Anor

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/379/25
HARARE, 05 JUNE, 2025
And 14 OCTOBER 2025
CASE NO. LC/H/365/25
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	JUDGMENT NO .LC/H/379/25 HARARE, 05 JUNE, 2025

And 14 OCTOBER 2025	CASE NO.	LC/H/365/25

CLEOPAS ZWIMBA	APPLICANT

MARANATHA FERROCHROME PRIVATE LIMITED	1ST RESPONDENT

S. ZIMUTO N.O.	2ND RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable G. Musariri, Judge:

For Applicant	- C. Zwimba, Applicant

For 1st Respondent	- H. Muromba, Attorney

For 2nd Respondent	-No Appearance

MUSARIRI, J:

Applicant applied for leave to appeal this Court judgment LC/H/127/25, issued on 21 March, to the Supreme Court. The application was made in terms of section 92F of the Labour

Act [Chapter 28:01] as read with rule 43 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. Respondent opposed the application.

The draft notice of appeal sets out four (4) grounds of appeal thus,

The court a quo erred that the matter LC/H/250/24 was a nullity, in full knowledge of the Supreme Court decision/ruling on Rule 11A (4). See Annexure B.

The Court a quo erred that there is no provision for correction for a defect, once a matter is struck off the roll because of a fatal defective application.

The court a quo erred in that it totally deliberately remained silent on the Supreme Court ruling/judgment on Rule 11A (4), on the omission of an alternative email address on the court application.

The court a quo erred in deliberately failing to abide by the decision/ judgment of the Supreme Court on Rule 11A (4), on omission of an alternative email address on the court application. Wherefore …..”

The pertinent part of respondent’s opposing affidavit countered that,

“10.3 This Honourable Court and 1st Respondent are left at sea trying to decipher what it is that Applicant is saying this Honourable Court erred. A reading of all the grounds of appeal will demonstrate that Applicant seems to be taking issue with the judgment of this Honourable court in LC/H/250/24 with the judgment number LC/H/483/24 as it is the judgment which dealt with the interpretation of Rule 4A of the Labour Court Rules.

10.4.  Unfortunately, he is seeking to challenge the wrong judgment of this Honourable Court in Case Number LC/H/95/25 under judgment LC/H/127/25.

A reading of he said judgment will show that it did not deal with the issues that Applicant is raising his intended grounds of appeal.

12.   Accordingly, there is no basis for this Honourable Court to grant an application for leave to appeal when the intended grounds are challenging a totally different judgment altogether and when the grounds of appeal do not raise a question of law and are meaningless.”

Analysis

Applicant’s draft appeal revolves around this Court’s interpretation of Rule A (4) of the Labour Court Rules in its judgment LC/H/250/24. The judgment LC/H/127/25 (referred in present application) does not deal with the interpretation of Rule 11A (4). It deals with the interpretation of Rules 22 and 35. The grounds of appeal are therefore incompetent as they address

a different judgment. Apparently applicant seeks to appeal this court’s judgment LC/H/483/24

using a wrong procedure.

Conclusion

The applicant failed to show reasonable prospects of success. Therefore the application ought to be dismissed as devoid of merit.

Wherefore it is ordered that,

The application for leave to appeal be and is hereby dismissed; and

Each party shall bear is own costs.

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