Nyasha Nyasango v Star Africa

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/176/2021
HARARE, 6 SEPTEMBER 2021 &
22 OCTOBER 2021
CASE NO LC/H/97/21
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	   JUDGMENT NO LC/H/176/2021

HARARE, 6 	SEPTEMBER 2021 &		   CASE NO LC/H/97/21

22 OCTOBER 2021

In the matter between: -

NYASHA NYASANGO					APPLICANT

AND

STAR AFRICA						RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable Kudya J

For the Applicant			In Person

For the Respondent			Danai Matawu (Legal Practitioner)

KUDYA, J:

This is an application for condonation of late noting of an appeal by the applicant employee.  The employer is opposed to the grant of the condonation relief. The employee’s case is that he erroneously filed for review which application was consequently dismissed. He says due to his self-acting status he wasted the dies inducia for noting an appeal pursuing the ill-fated review application.  He contends that he has a merited case on appeal. His argument is that the employer casualties his labour and later replaced him with another employee where he legitimately expected to have his contract of work continue.  It is his contention that the termination of his contract as a non-permanent employee was thus in breach of the law.  To that extent he is of the view that he has a good case on appeal deserving to be given its day in court.

In response the employer first argues that the employee says it is condonation in relation to a labour officer’s decision yet the ruling speaks to a designated agent.

In reaction the employee says he knows not of any other decision except the one on file which however is unsigned.   A reading of the record indeed shows that it was a designated agent’s decision and not a labour officer’s decision. Given the layman status of the employee the court is of the view that there is no need to read too much into that title mix up to warrant conclusion that there is no application before the courts.  For what it is which the point at the outset is unmerited and should consequently fail.

Turning to the excuse given about the default it is worth noting that employee is out by a year to note his appeal. It is also noteworthy that during the period when this matter was awaiting determination the case of Isoquant CCZ 6/20 put to rest the debate about confirmation proceedings. It is clear that the ruling sought to be appealed falls foul of Isoquant (Supra).  In that regard it would be academic to grant condonation in a matter where it is clear that there are no merits in the main matter.  The court is satisfied that no good case for condonation has been made out. It should therefore fail.

IT IS ORDERED THAT

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

Coglan, Welsh and Guest, Respondent’s Legal Practitioners