Kushinga Rowan Machaka v Plan International

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/613/14
HARARE 14TH JULY 2014
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	         JUDGMENT NO LC/H/613/14

HARARE  14TH JULY 2014					LC/APP/H/414/14

& 26TH SEPTEMBER 2014			          		LC/H/521/05

In the matter between:-

KUSHINGA ROWAN MACHAKA					Appellant

And

PLAN INTERNATIONAL						Respondent

Before The Honourable E Makamure, Judge

Appellant			In person

For Respondent		Mr O Matizanadzo (Legal Practitioner)

MAKAMURE, J:

This is an appeal by the appellant against his dismissal by the respondent.  Before the appeal could be argued, the respondent raised three points in limine.  These are that:

the matter was not properly before Court;

the appeal having been noted out of time, there was no application for condonation of such late filing of appeal out of time, and

no point of law was raised in the grounds of appeal

The first and most important issue is that the applicant was dismissed in terms of  Statutory Instrument 130/2003 (S.I. 130/2003, “the regulations”) which was repealed  and substituted by Statutory Instrument 15/06.  The substance of regulations as contained in S.I. 130/2003 remained unchanged after the repeal.

In terms of those regulations, the appellant, if aggrieved by the decision which the respondent arrived at, was supposed to have referred his matter to a Labour Officer.  The record shows that he was advised by his employer, employer in writing, to do so.  He did not do so.   Codes of conduct are   sacrosanct and their provisions should not be interfered with by the Court willy-nilly.  Equally parties should abide by what those codes provide.  Instead of following the provisions of the employment code the appellant chose to approach this Court.  What this means is that the appellant approached this Court before exhausting domestic remedies. It is trite that before approaching this Court domestic remedies must be exhausted.  (See Zikiti v United Bottlers 1998 (1) ZLR 389 (H).  The appeal is therefore not properly before the Court.  This makes it unnecessary for me to determine the other two points raised in limine.  For that reason the appeal must fail.

Accordingly it is ordered that the appeal be and is hereby dismissed with costs.

Appellant, in person

Matizanadzo & Warhurst, respondent’s legal practitioners