Munyaradzi Matonga v Minister of Primary & Secondary Education

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/453/2016
HARARE, 31 MAY 2016 &
CASE NO LC/H/APP/135/2016
22 JULY 2016
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	         JUDGMENT NO LC/H/453/2016

HARARE, 31 MAY 2016 &					CASE NO LC/H/APP/135/2016

22 JULY 2016

In the matter between

MUNYARADZI MATONGA						APPLICANT

Versus

MINISTER OF PRIMARY & SECONDARY				RESPONDENT

EDUCATION

Before the Honourable Maxwell J

For the Applicant	T Mupangwa (Legal Practitioner)

For the Respondent	H Magadure  (Law Officer)

MAXWELL J:

This is an application for condonation of late noting of appeal. The applicant was charged and convicted of improper association with a school girl at Rusike Secondary School. The improper association occurred in 2000. The applicant was convicted in 2006.

On 30 September 2006 the applicant noted an appeal against the determination and penalty meted on him. On 30 May 2007 the Provincial Education Director Mashonaland East wrote to the applicant indicating that the Commission has no jurisdiction to consider appeals. On 25 July 2014 the applicant applied for re-appointment into the Ministry. His application was turned down. On 10 February 2016 the applicant filed the present application.

In the basis for application the applicant states that he never received a response from the Commission after noting his appeal. He states that he made several inquiries and then decided to approach legal practitioners in 2014 for assistance. He claims that his legal practitioners got a response from the Commission on 28 October 2014.

In response the respondent stated that the matter has prescribed. Further that the applicant was aware of the decision as the address on the letter of appeal was used to notify him of the Commission’s decision. The respondent also pointed out that when the applicant was applying for re-appointment he stated that he had not made any follow-ups on the appeal due to economic challenges.

At the hearing of the matter the respondent persisted with the point in limine that the matter had prescribed. This judgment is on that point. Section 15 (d) of the Prescription Act [Chapter 8:11] sets the period of prescription for a matter as this one at three years. The applicant was supposed to have approached this court on appeal within twenty-one days from the date he received the determination. Having failed to do so, he had a period of three years within which to seek condonation. The applicant is approaching this court after a period of over nine years. Clearly the matter is prescribed.

The applicant’s contention that he was not aware of the decision of the Commission on his appeal is without merit. It was submitted for the respondent that the letter communicating the decision of the Commission was sent to the address reflected on the letter of appeal. As it was the applicant who had supplied the address used, the applicant is deemed to have received the letter. The record of proceedings shows he is a person who changed address several times. The respondent cannot be faulted for communicating with him through an address he had supplied.

I am satisfied that there is merit in the objection. Accordingly the following order is appropriate:

The application be and is hereby dismissed with costs.

Masawi & Partners, applicant’s legal practitioners

Civil Division of the A G’s Office, respondent’s legal practitioners