Four Seasons Foods (Pvt) Ltd v Stephen Matsvakauhau and 7 Others

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/485/12
HELD AT HARARE, SEPTEMBER 21, 2012
CASE NO. LC/H/65/2003
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE		JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/485/12

HELD AT HARARE, SEPTEMBER 21, 2012	CASE NO. LC/H/65/2003

In the matter between

FOUR SEASONS FOODS (PVT) LTD		APPLICANT

And

STEPHEN MATSVAKANHAU			RESPONDENT

AND 7 OTHERS

Before the Honourable E. Makamure:	President

For the Applicant         		: Advocate L. Uriri

For the Respondents		: Ms P. Kadembo (Legal Practitioner)

MAKAMURE E.,

This is an application for leave to appeal a judgment of this Court to the Supreme Court.  The application is opposed.  Judgment was granted by this Court on 4 May 2012.  The applicant filed its notice of appeal to the Supreme Court on 26 May 2012.  The applicant then filed its Heads of Argument on 20 September 2012.    The respondent has submitted that the applicant ought to have filed its heads within fourteen days.  This is what is contemplated by Rule 19 of the Rules of this Court Statutory Instrument 59 of 2006.  The respondent submitted that in view of the applicant’s failure to comply with Rule 19, the applicant is barred.  The applicant holds a different view.  Advocate Uriri who appeared on behalf of the applicant submitted that Rule 19 applies to applications governed by Rule 14 and Rule 16.  Advocate Uriri further submitted that in the event that the Court is persuaded that Rule 19 covers the present application the Court should invoke the provisions of Rule 19(6).  This will enable the Heads of Argument with the leave of the Court, to be properly before it.  In any event submitted Advocate Uriri, the Court can still determine the application on the merits in terms of Rule 19(3)(b).

In response Ms Kadembo who appeared on behalf of the respondents submitted that the provisions of Rule 19 apply to the applications including an application for leave to appeal.  If that were not so, Ms Kadembo argued, the rule would have stated so.

It is trite that Rule 19 provides for matters in which parties are legally represented.  On the other hand Rule 14 deals with applications which arise in terms of Section 89 (2)(b) or (c) of The Act.  Labour Act Chapter 28:01.  Rule 19 is there to ensure that where parties are represented by legal practitioners, a higher standard of work and adherence to Court procedures is presented.  This is to show a clear distinction between self actors and legally represented parties.  Admittedly, there are gaps within the Rules which require the Court to at times adopt a purposive approach in order to achieve justice.  This is also why Rule 26 is useful to enable the Court to deal with situations which are not clear.

However, it must be emphasised that where parties are legally represented, they must comply with the Rules of this Court.  The applicant has not complied with the Rules.  In the circumstances therefore the applicant is barred.  An appropriate application for the upliftment of the bar must be made.  Once the application to uplift the bar has been made, such application must be considered.

In view of the foregoing it is ordered that the applicant be and is hereby barred in terms of the Rules.  The matter may, if an application for upliftment of the bar has not been made, proceed to be considered on the merits in terms of the Rules.

Gill Godlonton and Gerrans, Legal Practitioners for the Applicant.

Gula-Ndebele and Partners, Legal Practitioners for the Respondent.