Crocodile Security (Pvt) Ltd v G. Mhaka

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/388/14
HARARE ON 19th JUNE, 2014
CASE NO. LC/H/247/13
AND 4Th JULY, 2014
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/388/14
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	                          JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/388/14

HARARE ON 19th JUNE, 2014			          		  CASE NO. LC/H/247/13

AND 4Th JULY, 2014

In the matter between

CROCODILE SECURITY (PVT) LTD		-	APPLICANT

And

G. MHAKA						-	RESPONDENT

Before The Honourable L. Hove  J.

Applicant     	    :	G. Mhaka (In Person)

For Respondent :	R. Zimudzi (Legal Practitioner)

HOVE J,

This is an application in terms of Rule 19(3)(a) of the Labour Court Rules, 2006.

The Applicant submitted that in terms of the said Rules of Court the Appellant was supposed to file within 14 days of filing of the notice of response, its heads of argument. It was submitted further that the Respondent filed their notice of response on 15th July 2013 and it was served on the Appellant on the 16th July 2013. The Respondent failed to file its heads as required by the Rules of Court and is thus barred.  The appeal in the main matter should thus be dismissed.

The Respondent did not challenge the truthfulness of the submitted facts but submitted that it is not represented by a legal practitioner. He submitted that initially he had approached Zimbabwe Human Rights Association who assisted him to file his appeal since he was desperate.

The notice of appeal on page one and two of the record shows that the person noting the appeal was the Appellant and not Zimbabwe Human Rights Association.

Zimbabwe Human Rights Association is just given as an address of service.

The application is therefore based on the faulty assumption that the Applicant is represented by a legal practitioner.

The Appellant denied in his arguments in Court that he was represented. The record bears him out. There was therefore no need for the Zimbabwe Human Rights Association to file any notice of renunciation of agency.

The case that I have been referred to of National Airways Workers Union and Another vs Air Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd LC/H/67/11 relates to a matter were the parties were legally represented and is therefore not comparable to this matter.

I find, in this matter, that the Respondent was not legally represented and no duty arose in terms of Rule 19 of the Rules of this Court.

In the result, the application is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Hove and Associates – Applicant’s legal practitioners