Ernest Easton and 9 Others v Triangle (Pvt) Ltd and Fungai Mutasa N.O.

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/56/2025
HARARE, 14 FEBRUARY, 2025 AND
20 FEBRUARY 2025
CASE NO LC/H/1309/24
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	JUDGMENT NO LC/H/56/2025

HARARE, 14 FEBRUARY, 2025 AND

20 FEBRUARY 2025	CASE NO LC/H/1309/24

ERNEST EASTON AND 9 OTHERS

TRIANGLE (PVT) LTD

FUNGAI MUTASA N.O.

APPLICANTS

1ST RESPONDENT

2ND RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable G. Musariri, Judge:

For Applicants

For 1st Respondent

- F. Mahere, Advocate

- I. Nderere, Attorney and

- A. Mutanhira, Attorney

MUSARIRI, J:

1

JUDGMENT NO LC/H/56/25 CASE NO LC/H/1309/24

Applicants applied to this Court for the reinstatement of an abandoned matter. The application was made in terms of Rule 46 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. 1st respondent opposed the application.

At the onset of oral argument, 1st respondent raised six (6) points in limine which applicants opposed. The Court shall deal with one point only which disposes of the matter.

The decisive point is set out in 1st respondent’s heads of argument thus;

“14. Rule 11A(4) and (5) of the Labour Court rules provide as follows;

‘(4) Every notice of appeal or application shall provide an alternative email address for the purposes of service or delivery of pleadings.

(5) All litigants shall provide telephone numbers from the following service providers, namely: Econet, NetOne or Telecel, or any other service provider specifically identified in Practice Directions issued from time to time.’

15. The provisions articulated above impose an unequivocal obligation on litigants to

furnish essential contact information, especially mandating the inclusion of an alternative email address and telephone numbers from designated service providers. It is imperative to underscore that the rule is couched in peremptory terms, thereby precluding any deviation from its stipulations…”

17. It therefore follows that the failure by the Applicants to comply with the requirements

of the rules renders the purported application a nullity and as such, same ought to be struck off the roll with costs on a legal practitioner-client scale-“

The point was also raised in 1st respondent’s opposing affidavit filed on 8 January 2025.

Surprisingly applicants did not advert to or deal with the point in their heads of argument filed on 22nd January 2025. In oral argument they sought to say that they provided an email address and

telephone numbers when they got accredited to the Court’s IECMS platform. However Rule 11A 2

JUDGMENT NO LC/H/56/25 CASE NO LC/H/1309/24

(4) requires that the details shall appear in the notice of appeal or application. Applicants’ application filed on 20th December 2024 does not have the said details. Failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Court’s Rules renders the impugned pleading a nullity. This much was restated by the Supreme Court in,

Mazambani v International Export 2020(1) ZLR 1418(S) Per Mathonsi JA at 1423D

“In terms of r 37(1) (e) of the court’s rules, every civil appeal shall be instituted in the form of a notice of appeal signed by the appellant or his or her legal practitioner and shall state the ‘exact relief sought.’ The authorities make it clear that every notice of appeal must strictly comply the mandatory provisions of the rules of court and that a failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of the rules renders an appeal a nullity.”

By parity of reasoning failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of Rule 11A(4) of this Court’s Rules renders an application a nullity.

Conclusion

The application in casu being a nullity, it stands to be struck off the roll. Accordingly it is unnecessary to deal with the other points in limine.

Wherefore it is ordered that,

3

JUDGMENT NO LC/H/56/25 CASE NO LC/H/1309/24

1. The matter be and is hereby struck off the roll by reason of a fatally defective application; and

2. Each party shall bear its own costs.

G. MUSARIRI

J-U-D-G-E

4