D. Padare & 176 Others v Surface Investments (Pvt) Ltd

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/471/2014
HARARE, 15 JULY 2014
CASE NO.
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	                 JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/471/2014

HARARE, 15 JULY 2014                                                        CASE NO. LC/H/164/14

AND 01 AUGUST 2014

D. PADARE & 176 OTHERS					Appellants

SURFACE INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD				Respondent

Before The Honorable G. Musariri, Judge:

For Appellants 		Ms P. Beta, Unionist

For Respondent		Mr. B. Museba, Attorney

MUSARIRI, G:

At the onset of oral argument, Respondent raised two points in limine which Appellant opposed.

1. That D. Padare had no locus standi to institute legal proceedings on behalf of the     other Appellants.

Proceedings in this matter were instituted by way of a Notice of Appeal.  The original copy is filed of record.  It was date-stamped on 24th February 2014.  It has a space for the signature of the person noting the appeal.  It is common cause that the person who signed on that space is Ms P. Beta who appeared in this Court as the representative of the Appellants.  She works for the Appellants’ trade union that is Detergents, Edible Oils and Fats Workers Union.  In terms of section 92 (b) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] (thereafter called the Act) a party may be represented in Court by an official of his trade union. Thus it is not Padare who instituted proceedings in this Court on behalf of the other Appellants.  Rather the situation is

akin to an attorney instituting an appeal for several Appellants.  The matter is distinguishable from the cases cited by Respondent whereby one of the Appellants purports to act on behalf of the rest of them.

2.  That the appeal does not raise point/s of law

This matter involves an appeal against an arbitration award.  Section 98 (10) of the Act provides that an appeal against such an award is only available on points of law.  Appellants’ Grounds of Appeal are four-fold.  However I will focus on the 3rd point.  It was worded thus,

“The Honourable Arbitrator erred on a point of law by concluding that the Appellants’ contracts were lawfully terminated.”

It is common cause that the contracts were terminated.  However whether or not they were lawfully terminated is a question of law.  It entails the identification of the applicable rule of law.  It further entails the application of that law to the facts which is a question of both fact and law.  On that basis I am satisfied that Appellants’ appeal raises a point of law.

However the citation of the parties needs amendment.  Some of the Appellants are unnamed and others have withdrawn from the matter.  Appellants’ representative sought to apply for amendment in the course of her response to Respondent’s points in limine.  That was an unsatisfactory way to rectify matters.  A proper application for amendment is required.

Wherefore it is ordered that,

Respondent’s points in limine are hereby dismissed;

Appellants are given leave to apply for amendment of the citation of the parties; and

Each party shall bear its own costs.

G.   M U S A R I R I

J. U. D. G. E.