Back to top
Zalari has raised $2 million USD in a founding round led by Nyamaropa Technologies
Back to Labour Court
Judgment record

Nabothy Tambawoga v City of Masvingo

Labour Court of Zimbabwe15 March 2013
[2013] ZWLC 8LC/MS/08/20132013
Viewing: Word Document
Loading document...
Full text archive

Judgment text copy

A clean reading copy is shown below. Use Download for the original formatted document.
### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/MS/08/2013
HELD IN MASVINGO, MARCH 15, 2013
CASE NO. LC/MS/CON/02/11
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE 	JUDGMENT NO. LC/MS/08/2013

HELD IN MASVINGO, MARCH 15, 2013		CASE NO. LC/MS/CON/02/11

In the Matter Between

NABOTHY TAMBAOGA				       	APPLICANT

And

CITY OF MASVINGO					RESPONDENT

Before The Honourable E. Makamure         : President

FOR THE APPLICANT     		: Mr W. Makumire (Trade Unionist)

FOR THE RESPONDENT  		: Mrs W.O. Chirongoma (Legal Practitioner)

MAKAMURE E.,

This is an application for condonation of late noting of an appeal.  It is trite that in order for an application of this nature to succeed, the applicant must give a reasonable explanation for:

The inordinate delay.

Reasons for the delay.

Prospects of success on the merits.

(See Maxwell Mwanyisa v The Minister of Finance and Controller Department of Printing and Stationery and Public Service Commission HH65/2001)

It is common cause that no reasons for the delay were proffered.  Mr Makumire by his own admission confirmed that the absence of reasons for the delay is fatal.  That is true.  For that undisputed reason alone, the application should fail.  However, that is not all.  The applicant did not address the prospects of success on the merits.  How can a Court grant an application without knowing the prospects of success?  Further even the delay itself has not been properly articulated.  The applicant (or his representative) did not apply his mind to the present application.  Thus under the circumstances I am inclined to agree with Mrs Chirongoma’s submission that the absence of diligence by a representative can disadvantage the client.  The respondent’s Heads of Arguments were filed with this Court on 22 October 2012.  That is when any or all the deficiencies in the application ought to have been raised.  That was not done.  That is unfortunate and undesirable.  Further this matter has been outstanding for a long time.  It needs finality.  Fortunately for this Court the applicant has not satisfied any of the requirements regarding the application.  The Court has no hesitation in throwing out the application.

In it is in view of the foregoing that it is ordered that the application be and is hereby dismissed.

Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions, Representing The Applicant.

Chihambakwe, Makonese and Ncube Legal Practitioners, Representing the Respondent.