Levison Khombe v Public Service Commission & Anor

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/207/23
HARARE, 11 MAY 2023 & 11 JULY 2023
CASE NO LC/H/1149/22
In the matter between:-
LEVISON KHOMBE
APPLICANT
st
---------


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

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/207/23

HARARE, 11 MAY 2023 & 11 JULY 2023
CASE NO LC/H/1149/22

In the matter between:-

LEVISON KHOMBE
APPLICANT

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
1st RESPONDENT

MINISTER OF TRANSPORT AND INFRASTRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT
2nd RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable Kudya J

For the Applicant
Chikomo (Legal Practitioner)

For the Respondents
Machingauta (Civil Division)

KUDYA, J:

This is an application for the condonation of late noting of an appeal and extension of time within which to note the appeal. The respondent employer is opposed to the grant of condonation relief citing the fact that such is not well founded.

The law on condonation is settled See Jansen v Acavolos 1998(1) ZLR 216 (S). The main principles are the excuse and the prospects in the main matter. In the matter at hand applicant cites financial incapacity as his excuse for breaching the law. Granted financial incapacity is excusable if one notes the loss of job of the applicant. That however is not the end of the enquiry. It is the cumulative effect of all the condonation tenets that rules the day. See Mazvimbakupa v City of Harare HC-H-92-05. On the merits plane the applicant says he has a good case on appeal. The issue at stake is whether his employer was correct in finding him guilty of failing to vacate the accommodation which he had been offered when he was still stationed in Mutare. His argument is that he had a valid lease agreement so notwithstanding his transfer to Rusape he had to retain the Mutare accommodation. It need be stated at the onset that government accommodation is tied to one’s function. It would be illogical to let an officer retain housing in a town which he would have left unless there was an agreement that the lease was on a rent to buy basis. In the case at stake the applicant’s argument is that his employer had no business interfering with his lease agreement. He seems to forget that the housing was intended for his use whilst stationed in the town concerned. It is clear that his argument about a subsistent lease is porous to the extent that he has no good case on appeal. It is clear that the interests of justice favour the refusal of condonation relief if regard is had to the porous appeal which the applicant intends to mount. In the result the condonation application fails.

IT IS ORDERED THAT

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

Messrs Mutungura & Partners, Applicant’s Legal Practitioners
--- END OCR FALLBACK ---