Clovgate Elevator Company (Pvt) Limited v Winifred Hollington

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO.LC/H/226/14
HELD AT HARARE ON 31st MARCH, 2014
CASE NO. LC/H/CON/04/14
AND 11TH APRIL, 2014
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/226/14
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	   JUDGMENT NO.LC/H/226/14

HELD AT HARARE ON 31st MARCH, 2014   CASE NO. LC/H/CON/04/14

AND 11TH APRIL, 2014

In the matter between:-

CLOVEGATE ELEVATOR COMPANY (PVT) LIMITED   Applicant

And

WINIFRED HOLLINGTON						Respondent

Before the Honourable G. Mhuri, Judge

For Applicant	: Mr. T. Gunje (Legal Practitioner)

For Respondent: Mr. T.P. Uchena (Legal Practitioner)

MHURI J.:

On the 8th January, 2014 Applicant filed an application for condonation of late noting of an appeal against an arbitral award.  The award to be appealed against was issued on the 19th October, 2012.

The Respondent opposed the application and filed a notice of response on the 28th January, 2014.

In terms of Rule 19 of this Court’s Rules SI 59 of 2006, both parties are obliged to file Heads of Argument.  In particular Applicant was within 14 days of receipt of the notice of response, obliged to file its heads of argument.  This, applicant did not do.

The application was set down for hearing on the 31st March, 2014.  It is on this date that Applicant’s legal practitioner submitted that he had not filed Heads of Argument as the advocate he had briefed was seized with a two week matter in the High Court.  He then undertook to file the Heads of Argument by 4 pm the next day Tuesday.  Respondent also undertook to file his Heads of Argument by 4 pm on Wednesday.  On this note, the parties then suggested that the Court decides the application on the papers filed of record.

The Court then granted the parties the indulgence they had sought and reserved its ruling on the application pending the filing of Heads of Argument by the parties by 4 pm on Friday the 4th of April, 2014.

By 4 pm on Friday the parties had not complied with the undertaking they had made.

By 4 pm on Monday the 7th of April still the parties had not filed the Heads of Argument.

At the time of writing this judgment no Heads of Argument had been filed.

In terms of Rule 19(3)(b) Applicant is therefore barred.  In the result, I will dismiss the application as prayed for by Respondent in his notice of response.  The delay of over a year is too inordinate.  The explanation for the delay is totally unsatisfactory and the prospects of success are not bright.

It is therefore ordered that applicant having been barred for failure to file Heads of Argument and the application being devoid of merit it be and is hereby dismissed with costs.

Gunje and Chasakara–Applicant’s Legal Practitioners

Kantor and Immerman–Respondent’s Legal Practitioner