Fishmonger Restaurant v T Charuma

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT
NO LC/H/95/14
HELD AT HARARE 13TH FEBRUARY 2014
CASE NO
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/95/14
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE		JUDGMENT NO LC/H/95/14

HELD AT HARARE 13TH FEBRUARY 2014		CASE NO LC/H/375/09

& 28TH FEBRUARY 2014

In the matter between:-

FISHMONGER RESTAURANT				Appellant

And

T CHARUMA						Respondent

Before The Honourable L.M. Murasi, Judge

(IN CHAMBERS)

MURASI, J:

This matter was previously set down on 30 June 2010 before Matanda –Moyo J.  The Judge issued an order for the matter to be postponed sine die.  The matter was to be set down once the Heads of Argument were filed.  The matter was re-set for 13 February 2014and none of the parties have appeared.  The return of service shows that the offices of the union have relocated to an unknown address, which means that the respondent was not served.  However, the return in respect of appellant shows that it was served on Wintertons Legal Practitioners on 24 January 2014.  No explanation for their non-attendance has been proferred.

The matter was first filed with this Court on 3 November 2009 when the Notice of Appeal was filed.  To date no progress has been made in the prosecution of the appeal.  It is noted that appellant appealed for a stay of execution of arbitral award which was granted by Senior President Mutema

(as he then was) on 30 June 2010.  No Heads of Argument have been filed with the Court meaning that appellant is barred.  The Court has perused the record in a bid to finalise the matter.  This is in line with dicta which enjoins litigants to pursue their matters so that finality is brought to proceedings.  As stated in Maravanyika v Hove 1997 (2) ZLR 88 (HC) that:

“That is as it should be.  There should be legal certainty and finality in the relationship between parties, after a lapse of a period of time.  It would be against public interest for a person who holds a complete cause of action against his or her debtor to refrain from exercising the right of action  indefinitely.”

It would appear that after the appellant obtained an order for stay of execution, it literally “went to sleep”” and forgot about the matter.

The Court has considered the grounds of appeal filed by appellant.  This is an appeal in terms of section 98 (10) of the Act.  A careful consideration of the fifteen (15) grounds of appeal shows that none of them meets the requirement that they be on points of law.  The grounds of appeal are mere points on which the appellant is dissatisfied with the arbitrator’s ruling.  In most cases, they amount to statements as to what the appellant believes should have taken place in the matter.  The grounds of appeal do not meet the criteria listed in the Muzuva case and subsequent cases such as Sable Chemical Industries Ltd v David Peter Easterbrook SC18/10.

In light of the above, the Court accordingly dismisses the appeal with no order as to costs.