Method Matete v Cailo Marketing Services (Pvt) Ltd & 2 Ors

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H//2025
HARARE, 3 MARCH 2025 AND
6 MARCH 2025
CASE NO LC/H/1049/24
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	         	JUDGMENT NO LC/H//2025

HARARE, 3 MARCH 2025 AND

6 MARCH 2025                                                         	CASE NO LC/H/1049/24

METHOD MATETE					APPLICANT

CAILO MARKETING SERVICES (PVT) LTD		1st RESPONDENT

RAYMOND LUPAHLA  N.O.				2nd RESPONDENT

LUCIA MANDISODZA  N.O.				3rd RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable G. Musariri  Judge:

For  Applicant			- S. Sangula, Attorney

For 1st  Respondent		-D. Peneti, Attorney

For 2nd Respondent		-No Appearance

For 3rd Respondent		-No Appearance

MUSARIRI, J:

At the onset of oral argument in this Court Applicant raised two (2) points in limine,  which 1st Respondent opposed. The Court shall deal with the points ad seriatim.

1st point

The point is elaborated in applicant’s heads of argument thus,

“4. The deponent to the founding (sic) affidavit does not plead the basis of his authority as

required by law. In his affidavit he does not even plead the resolution as the basis of his authority to act.  Instead he bases his authority on the fact that he is the human resources manager to the respondent, and it is on that basis that he claims authority to depose to the affidavit. He does not state where the actual authority to deal with the matter derives from but is content to just attach a resolution. That with respect is incompetent.”

In its heads of argument respondent countered as follows;

“1. The preliminary point taken is totally without merit.

2. The deponent of the opposing affidavit clearly pleads authority to depose to the

opposing affidavit in this matter. Deponent stipulates his position in the business

and to that end, the basis upon which he was duly authorised to depose to the opposing

affidavit.

3. The deponent does not end there, He attaches evidence in the form of a board resolution

authorising to act as he is doing. This settles the point on deponent’s authority.

The deponent introduced his affidavit in this way

“1  Tapiwa Mudoni do hereby make oath and state as follows:

I am employed by the Respondent as its Human Resources Manager and in that capacity,

I am duly authorised to depose to this affidavit for an (sic) behalf of the Respondent, I

attach hereto my authority marked Annexture A.”

The applicable law on authority to represent corporates in court was set out in the case of

Dube  v  PSMAS   2019(3) ZLR 589(S)

Per Garwe  JCC at Para  38

“ His mere claim that by virtue of the position he holds in such an entity he is duly

authorised to represent the entity is not sufficient. He must produce a resolution of the

board of that entity which confirms that the board is indeed aware of the proceedings

and that it has given such person the authority to act in the stead of the entity.”

In casu  the deponent swore that he was authorised to represent 1st respondent and attached a company resolution that effect.  That is deemed sufficient proof per the Dube case.  The omission of the words “company resolution” in the affidavit is neither here nor there.

2nd Point

The applicant’s heads of argument stated that

“8. Further and in any event the board resolution attached to the pleadings itself falls short of

the requirements of the law and should not be disregarded.  As a consequence the application

is  unopposed and should be dealt with as such. We say so for the following reasons,

9. The resolution fails to meet the basic requirements of the law in that:-

I.  it does not identify or state the names of the parties to nor does it state or specify in clear

terms the matter for which the deponent has been authorised to represent the Respondent and

II, It is a blank authority giving the deponent mandate to represent the Respondent in any matter

involving the Appellants pending or that may arise.”

The Respondent’s heads countered that,

“11. In casu, there is a board resolution, being the product of the meeting of the board of

Directors.  It authorises the deponent of the opposing affidavit to act for the company in legal

matters involving the Applicant. This is exactly what then deponent did under the instruction	of the company.

12. Contrary to the assertion by the Applicant, there is no requirement that the resolution specify

the exact case that the authorised person should act in or specify any other terms as would be

called clear by the Applicant.”

There is no requirement for specific details of the case in which the deponent is authorised to act.  It is enough that the case can be identified.  In casu the resolution references “the matter pertaining to Method Matete.”  That cannot be said to be a blank cheque given to the deponent to act in any matter involving 1st respondent. The resolution is specific enough.

CONCLUSION

All in all it is concluded that the points in limine were poorly taken.  Hence they ought to be dismissed as devoid of merit.

Wherefore it is ordered that

Applicant’s points in limine be and are hereby dismissed; and

Costs shall be costs in the cause.

G.  MUSARIRI

J-U-D-G-E