George Banda v Bindura Nickel Corporation Limited & Anor

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/36/2021
HARARE, 18 NOVEMBER 2020 &
9 APRIL 2021
CASE NO LC/H/APP/557/19
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	   JUDGMENT NO LC/H/36/2021

HARARE, 18 NOVEMBER  2020 &		   CASE NO LC/H/APP/557/19

9 APRIL  2021

In the matter between:-

GEORGE BANDA					APPLICANT

And

BINDURA NICKEL CORPORATION		1st RESPONDENT

LIMITED

AND

VICTOR SIMEON NHEMA  N.O.			2nd RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable Kudya J

For the Applicant			In Person

For the 1st Respondent		F. Mahere (Legal Practitioner)

For the 2nd Respondent		No appearance

KUDYA, J:

This is an application for the condonation of late filing of a review application.  Background to the matter is  that the applicant employee approached a labour officer in a labour dispute pitting him and the 1st respondent employer.  The proceedings before the labour officer culminated into a ruling which was taken before the labour court and confirmed on 8 March 2018. 	The employee now seeks to have the labor officer before the proceedings reviewed citing what styles irregularities besetting the process which led to the decision which was confirmed on 8 March 2018.  The employer is opposed to the condonation relief.

The test for condonation is set and clearly in Jansen v Acavelos 1993 (1)ZLR 216(5).  The question to be decided in the case at hand is whether the tenets set out in Jansen (supra) have been satisfied. The employee contends that he failed to file his review case within the prescribed time lines because he was nursing his ill wife who eventually passed on.

He says during the proceedings before the labour officer he raised a number of issues which were not addressed to his satisfaction thus giving him the impression that such proceeding if reviewed could be vitiated or set aside hence the instant application.  He verily believes that if the issues he raised against the ruling proceedings found favour with this court there is a chance that the ruling arrived at by the labour officer can be set aside.

On the other hand the employer contends that the review application has become academic.  It has since been overtaken by events in that the substance of the ruling has already been attended to by the confirmation proceedings which birthed the order of 8 March 2018. In its view no meaningful purpose is served by granting relief in a matter which is technically res judicata since what intends to be reviewed has already been attended to and there is a judgment of this court which is extent being the 8 March 2018 judgment.

The court is in agreement that whilst the personal excuse given by the employee is understandable it is regrettable that the instant application has been overtaken by events vis the 8 March 2018 judgment. It is an exercise in futility to attempt to grant condonation in a matter where it is patently clear that what is now sought is purely academic.

In the result the court finds no basis to allow the condonation application.

IT IS ORDERED THAT

Application for condonation of late filing of review application being without merit it be and is hereby dismissed with each party bearing own costs.

Gill, Godlonton and Gerrans, 1st Respondent’s Legal Practitioners