Leonard Denhere N.O. v Med Farms & Anor

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/198/2023
HARARE, 27 MARCH 2023 & 10 JULY 2023
CASE NO LC/H/994/22
In the matter between:-
LEONARD DENHERE N.O.
APPLICANT
---------


==============================

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE

HARARE, 27 MARCH 2023 & 10 JULY 2023

In the matter between:-

LEONARD DENHERE N.O.

MED FARMS
1st RESPONDENT

TAURAI MUKAKI
2nd RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable Kudya J

For the Applicant
In Person

For the 1st Respondent
T. James (Legal Practitioner)

For the 2nd Respondent
Chibondo and Mbara (Legal Practitioners)

KUDYA, J:

This is an application for the confirmation of a ruling by a Labour Officer in the matter between Taurai Mukaki and Med Farms. Med Farms is opposed to the grant of confirmation relief and Mukaki supports the grant of such. Two issues are contested that is the issue of jurisdiction and the issue of calculus of damages due to Mukaki. Each of the issues is discussed below;

Jurisdiction

Med farms contends that the Labour Officer lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter which had commenced before an arbitrator under the law which prevailed before the Labour Amendment Act.

Mukaki agrees that indeed the matter had commenced before the arbitrator but on account of the fact that the office of the arbitrator became obsolete he saw it prudent to commence the proceedings before a Labour Officer now under the new law. The important question to be answered here is whether the advent of the new law dictated that the matters which had been commenced under the old law be commenced afresh under the new law. A reading of the Labour Amendment Act does not speak to retrospective application of the law. It is thus the court’s view that matters commenced under the old law should have been concluded as such. It was not open for Mukaki to commence proceedings afresh before the Labour Officer which proceedings were hanging before the arbitrator. There being no legal justification to act as the Labour Officer did it is clear that the ruling is bad at law and should not be confirmed as the Labour Officer lacked the jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

**Calculus**

Having concluded that the Labour Officer jurisdiction to deal with the matter it follows that it is of academic consequence to decide the issue of the calculations.

It is settled that nullity begets a nullity. See **McFoy v United Africa Company 1961 (3) AIER 1169**. On account of the conclusion that the proceedings were a nullity it follows that the calculations were equally a nullity.

In the result the court is satisfied that no good case for confirmation has been made out. The application should consequently fail.

**IT IS ORDERED THAT**

Application for confirmation of a ruling in the matter between Taurai Mukaki and Med Farms being ill founded it be and is hereby dismissed. Each party to bear own costs.

Cyprian’s Law Firm, 1st Respondent’s Legal Practitioners

Gumbo and Associates, 2nd Respondent’s Legal Practitioners
--- END OCR FALLBACK ---