Tatenda Zindoga v C M E D

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/92/2016
HARARE, 15 FEBRUARY 2016 &
4 MARCH 2016
CASE NO LC/H/332/2013
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	   JUDGMENT NO LC/H/92/2016

HARARE, 15 FEBRUARY 2016 &			             CASE NO LC/H/332/2013

4 MARCH 2016

In the matter between

TATENDA ZINDOGA							APPLICANT

Versus

C M E D									RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable L F Kudya J

The Applicant in Person

For the Respondent      Ms N Mangidza (Legal Practitioner)

KUDYA J:

This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The test for such application is settled. See Masekesa v Kingdom Financial Holdings SC 18-12 AND Dombodzvuku v CMED SC-31-12.

The background to the matter at hand is that the Labour Court on 14 February 2014 dismissed the applicant’s appeal in a matter which pitted him and the respondent employer. Irked by the dismissal of his appeal the applicant now wants to appeal to the Supreme Court against that 2014 decision. As is trite law it is incumbent upon such an appellant to first seek leave of appeal from the court which decided the matter which he intends to take upon appeal at the Supreme Court. The basic tests are whether the applicant has demonstrated that he has points of law which he wants the Supreme Court to deliberate on. He also has to show that he has a reasonably arguable case on appeal.

Applying the law to the facts of the case at hand it is important to note that all the appeal grounds cited by the applicant are a simple regurgitation of what he put up at the appeal which failed in the Labour Court. It is further worth noting that those very same points were debated on by the labour Court and findings made on them. There is nothing out of the findings on what has far been submitted now by the applicant which demonstrate that he has a merited case on appeal and that he has points of law worth taking up with the Supreme Court. In the result the application should fail.

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court being without merit, it be and is hereby dismissed.

Each party bears own costs.

T K Hove Partners, respondent’s legal practitioners