Staysun Investments (Pvt) Ltd v Sophia Munemo

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/373/2016
HARARE, 12 MAY 2016
CASE NO.
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	                 JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/373/2016

HARARE, 12 MAY 2016			          	       CASE NO. LC/H/APP/1372/15

AND 10 JUNE 2016

In the matter between:-

STAYSUN INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD					Applicant

And

SOPHIA MUNEMO								Respondent

Before The Honourable F.C. Maxwell, Judge

For Applicant		Ms C. Malaba (Legal Practitioner)

For Respondent		Ms P. Kashiri (Legal Practitioner)

MAXWELL, J

At the hearing of this matter I dismissed the application with costs and indicated that reasons would follow.  These are they;

On 15 October 2015 I dismissed the applicant’s appeal with costs.  At that hearing applicant was represented by one Witness Mapamba, a human resources officer.  On 12 November 2015 applicant filed an application for leave to appeal in terms of section 92F (2) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01].  Applicant was now represented by counsel.  The founding affidavit to the application was deposed to by Witness Mapamba.  The intended grounds of appeal are;

The Court a quo erred in law in finding, as it must be taken to have done, that the respondent had worked overtime in terms of the CBA and was accordingly entitled to payment thereof.

The court a quo erred in law in finding that there was proper quantification of cash in lieu of overtime when the respondent produced no evidence to prove the figures claimed.

The Court a quo erred in law in finding, as it must be taken to have done, that the appellant breached the provision of the relevant Collective Bargaining Agreement in respect of overtime.

In response respondent averred that the appeal lacks merit and is frivolous.  Further that the appeal is not on a question of law as required by section 98 (10) of the Act and therefore the matter should be dismissed with costs.

Counsel for applicant’s oral submissions mainly addressed issues in the arbitral award.  No submissions were made pertaining to the judgment of this court.  It was apparent that counsel for applicant had not bothered to peruse the record of proceedings before launching the application for leave to appeal.  Counsel was of the view that the Court had issued an order without any reasons.

The record of the proceedings of 15 October 2015 shows that the Court gave a ruling with four points, the last of which was the order that the Appeal has no merit and therefore is dismissed with costs.

An application of this nature is governed by section 92F of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] as well as rule 36 of this Court’s rules, SI 59/06.  The application must

be on a question of law;

be made within thirty days from the date of the decision sought to be appealed against; and

There must be prospects of success on appeal.  I am satisfied that the application was filed timeously.  I am convinced that the respondent’s objection is well taken.  The intended grounds of appeal do not raise any question of law.  In any event the applicant’s representative in the hearing a quo made admissions that had the effect of justifying the findings of the arbitrator.

It is for these reasons that the application was dismissed with costs.

Kantor and Immerman, applicant’s legal practitioners

Thondhlanga & Associates, respondent’s legal practitioners