Sydney Mutasa v T M Sakubva & Anor

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/3/2021
HARARE, 10 NOVEMBER 2020 &
3 MARCH 2021
CASE NO LC/H/LRA/415/17
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	             JUDGMENT NO LC/H/3/2021

HARARE, 10 NOVEMBER  2020 &			CASE NO LC/H/LRA/415/17

3  MARCH 2021

In the matter between

SYDNEY MUTASA						APPLICANT

Versus

T M. SAKUBVA						1st RESPONDENT

ROTI   CHIZA						2nd RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable Kudya J

For the Applicant			In Person

For the  1st Respondent	 	M. Chinyangarara Kaseke (Legal Practitioner)

For the 2nd Respondent		In Person

KUDYA J:

This matter was set down as an application for confirmation of a ruling by a labour officer in terms of Section 93 (5) Labour Amendment Act. On the hearing date the employer raised a point in limine to the effect that the matter was improperly before the court.  This was so taking into account two recent decisions of Sakarombe v Montana Meats SC-4-10 and Isoquant Investment v Darku No CCZ 6/20.  The employer’s argument was that the labour officer sat on the matter as if it were an  appellate body contrary to the spirit of Montana Meats (supra). It also reasoned that the labour officer had not complied with Isoquant supra which only allowed him to conciliate on proceedings not of an appellate nature.  In the result the employee prayed that the Labour Officer’s decision and proceedings giving rise to the confirmation application be set aside and that the employee seeks appellate relief from the labour court if he is anxious to get appellate relief.

In response to the point in limine the labour officer indicated that he had handled the ruling proceedings prior to Montana Meats (supra) and Isoquant supra.  In his view he was acting properly and See 8(6) of SI 15/06.  He however concluded that he was in the court’s hands as to the decision on the point in limine.  He would thus abide by whatever decision the court came up with on that point in limine.

When the employee was asked to submit on the point he sought a postponement of the matter stating that he needed his own representative to be present to speak to the raised point in limine.  The court went on to indulge the employee but emphasized that the date of next the hearing needed to be close to avoid incurring legal costs.  The matter was postponed to a date which parties had to agree upon with the judge’s clerk. Awaiting notification of the next hearing date the employee filed with the court a letter stamped 10 November 2020 indicating that he had consulted on the matter and he was no longer desirous to have the matter set down for another date for his representative to submit on the point in limine.  In the result he prayed that the court proceeds to determine the matter on the basis of papers already filed of record.  It is within that spirit that the present judgment was written by this court.

It is settled law as stated in the cases quoted by the employer that confirmation relief is not available in a case with facts similar to those of the matter at hand.  To that extent it is an exercise in futility to try and assess whether the labour officer correctly decided the labour matter between the employee and the employer.  It is clear that the application is improperly before this court and should be struck off the roll.

IT IS ORDERED THAT

Application for confirmation of a ruling in the matter between Roti Chiza and TM Supermarkets be and is hereby struck off the roll.  Each party bears own costs.

Honey & Blanckenberg, Respondent’s Legal Practitioners