Dowson Chishiri v Polypackaging (Pvt) Ltd & Anor

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/411/25
HARARE, 21 OCTOBER 2025
And 24 OCTOBER 2025
CASE NO. LC/H/759/25
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/411/25

HARARE, 21 OCTOBER 2025

And 24 OCTOBER 2025	CASE NO.	LC/H/759/25

DOWSON CHISHIRI	APPLICANT

POLYPACKAGING (PVT) LTD	1st RESPONDENT

QIANG GUO N.O.	2nd RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable G. Musariri Judge:

For Applicant	- D. Chishiri, Applicant

For Respondent	-D. Peneti, Attorney

For 2nd Respondent	-No Appearance

MUSARIRI, J:

Applicant applied for leave to appeal this Court’s judgement to the Supreme Court. The application was made in terms of section 92F of the Labour Act as read with rule 43 of the Labour Court Rules,2017. Respondent opposed the application.

Applicant filed his draft Notice of appeal to the Supreme Court. The grounds of appeal are duet thus,

“1. The Labour Court grossly erred and misdirected itself in law when it failed to determine preliminary issue before going into the merits of the review as a legal requirement.

The Labour Curt grossly erred and misdirected itself in law when it failed to observe the following gross irregularities viz:-

The investigation report discovered before the Court dated 21st of March 2025 did not make part of the disciplinary record and further the investigations assuming were done same was prior suspension of the 24th of March 2025.

The Presiding Officer was an interested party as she was involved in the matter prior the disciplinary hearing.

The ultimate penalty was imposed before pronouncement of the verdict and mitigation consideration.

The involvement of the Managing Director denied Applicant’s right to an internal appeal as a legal right.

RELIEF SOUGHT

Wherefore, appellant prays that the appeal be allowed with costs and the determination by the Labour Court be set aside and substituted with the following;

The appeal wholly succeeds with costs and the determination by the Labour Court dated the 16th of July2025 be and are hereby set aside.

The review be and is hereby allowed and the matter be and is hereby remitted back to the employer or a hearing de novo in compliance with the Code of conduct Statutory Instrument 99 of 2022 and principles of natural justice.

1st Respondent shall pay the costs’”

1st Respondent’s opposing affidavit countered as follows

“15. The draft notice of appeal is titled an application for leave to appeal which is fatal.

In the same vein, the draft notice of appeal has no portion that deals with preparation of the record or payment of security of costs. These are standard yet critical components of a notice of appeal. The absence of these render the draft notice of appeal fatally defective.

If the above is not enough, the draft grounds of appeal are equally fatally defective. The first ground deals with failure by the disciplinary committee (sic) to deal with preliminary points, which points are not specified and not articulated.

Ground of appeal 2 is again a regurgitation of the founding affidavit. The same baseless accusations which were dealt with by this court are repeated.

…The application is simply without merit…”

ANALYSIS

Part VII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2025 provide for appeals from the Labour to the Supreme Court. Rule 65(1) require that the notice of appeal shall be in Form 13. The form is

subtitled ‘Notice of Appeal.’ The notice in casu is titled ‘ Notice of Application For Leave to Appeal against decision of the Labour Court in terms of Rule 43(2) of Statutory Instrument

150 of 2017 as read together with Section 92F(2) of the Labour Act (Chapter 28:01)’. The title is very wrong and fatally so, as argued for 1st respondent.

1st respondent argued that the draft notice wrongly fails to provide security for costs of appeal and records preparations.

Form 13 has provisions for the said security and undertaking in respect of the record costs. The omission in applicant’s notice is fatal. 1st respondent complained about the 1st ground of appeal which references a preliminary point which is not spelt out. The ground is arguably void for vagueness. The other ground is said to be a regurgitation of the grounds for review. “Regurgitation” per se does not amount to fatal error.

Lastly and in addition, 1st respondent complained about the relief sought in the draft appeal. In light of the Court’s foregoing analyses it is unnecessary to deal with this point which was not canvassed in the opposing affidavit.

CONCLUSION

Chamboko v Dorowa	SC 26/15

Per Malaba CJ

“In any case an applicant for leave must file a notice of appeal that conforms to the requirements of the rules of court at the time the application for leave to appeal is made. Where the notice of appeal filed is fatally defective, there is no valid application. In this case the document filed as a notice of appeal is fatally defective.”

Wherefore it is ordered that

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

Each party shall bear its own costs.