Paul Brown v Quickhaul Transport Services Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/247/25
HARARE, 10 JULY, 2025
CASE NO LC/H/405/25
And 16 JULY 2025
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	JUDGMENT NO LC/H/247/25 HARARE, 10 JULY, 2025		CASE NO LC/H/405/25 And 16 JULY 2025

PAUL BROWN	APPLICANT

QUICKHAUL TRANSPORT SERVICES ZIMBABWE	RESPONDENT (PVT) LTD

Before the Honourable G. Musariri, Judge:

For Applicant	- T.C Nemadziva, Unionist

For Respondent	- T. Runganga, Attorney (Barred)

MUSARIRI, J:

Applicant applied to this Court for the review of his dismissal from employment by Respondent. The application was made in terms of Section 89(1) d1 of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 as read together with Rule 20 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017.

Respondent opposed the application.

At the onset of oral argument, applicant raised 2 (two) points in limine which shall be addressed

ad seriatim.

That the Respondent attorney is barred for failure to file an Assumption of Agency:

The point is based of Rule 25 which provides that;

1

(1) Where a party-

(c) is represented by a legal practitioner, the legal practitioner shall file a written notice of assumption of agency in form LC 6 with the Registrar and serve copies of the notice to the other party or that party’s legal practitioners or representative.

(4) A legal practitioner who does not comply with sub-rule (1) shall not have the right of audience in respect of that matter.”

Respondent’s attorney argued that they ‘assumed agency’ when they filed the notice of opposition on behalf of respondent. The notice bears the attorney’s name and address. The prescribed Form LC 6 (Assumption of Agency) requires the attorney to notify the other party of its name and address. Thus though the attorney failed to file an Assumption of Agency, his notice of opposition also serves as an Assumption of Agency. Therefore the Court hereby invokes its powers under Rule 32 and condones the failure by respondent’s attorney to file an Assumption of Agency.

That there is a conflict of interest which disqualifies Respondent’s attorney from appearing in this matter:

During the argument of this point respondent’s attorney admitted that the Respondent’s heads of argument were not signed by him. They were signed by K. Musoni who acted as the Disciplinary Officer during the disciplinary hearing in casu. Musoni is apparently an attorney with his own practice separate from respondent’s attorneys. Pressed to explain this anomaly, respondent’s attorney conceded that the heads were irregular and should be struck off the record. The resultant position is that the attorney is barred from appearing by the provisions of Rule 26(2).

The matter then proceeded as an unopposed application wherein applicant applied for default judgment.

Wherefore it is ordered that,

The application for review be and is hereby granted by reason of Respondent’s default;

The dismissal of applicant from employment by respondent is set aside;

3(a). Respondent shall reinstate Applicant without loss of salary and benefits, or

(b). Respondent shall pay Applicant damages in lieu of reinstatement in a sum either agreed by the parties or assessed by this Court; and

4. Each party shall bear its own costs.

G. MUSARIRI J-U-D-G-E