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

Noel Matthew Mupuriri v Ministry of Agriculture

Labour Court of Zimbabwe28 March 2013
[2013] ZWLC 106LC/H/106/20132013
Viewing: Word Document (Legacy)
Loading document...
Full text archive

Judgment text copy

A clean reading copy is shown below. Use Download for the original formatted document.
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE                    JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/106/2013
HELD AT HARARE ON 28 MARCH, 2013                   CASE NO. LC/ H/327/2012
In the matter between




NOEL MATTHEW MUPURIRI                          –              Appellant
And

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE                        –              Respondent




Before The Honourable L. Matanda-Moyo, President
For Appellant      -In person
For Respondent     - Mr R.M. Basera (Civil Division)


MATANDA-MOYO, L.

      The matter was set down in terms of rule 19(3)(a) of this court’s rules. At

the time the appeal was filed Appellant was represented by Messrs Laita and

Partners Legal Practitioners.   Such Legal Practitioners were enjoined to file

Appellant’s heads of argument upon receipt of a notice of response from the

Respondent. They failed to do so. A notice of set down was sent to Appellant

lawyers advising them of that day’s hearing. Appellant also confirmed that he

informed his lawyers of record of the set down date. The lawyers informed

Appellant that there would no longer be representing him as he had not paid

their fees. Whilst the lawyers have a right to choose who to represent, they

must still respect court rules.      Court rules oblige the lawyers to file a

renunciation of agency should they decide not to represent their clients in court.

The lawyers in casu have not filed such renunciation. They are still representing
                                                  JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/106/2013


Appellant as far as this court is concerned. By failing to attend court the said

lawyers have shown a disdain of this court. This court is at large to call upon

such lawyers to explain their conduct and show cause why this day’s wasted

costs should not be ordered on them.

Accordingly it is ordered that;

   1) The lawyers of record namely Laita and Company appear before this

      court on a date to be determined by the Registrar to show cause why

      wasted costs should not be ordered against them.




                                                                               2