Trevor Wicks v Cotton Company of Zimbabwe (Private) Limited

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO.LC/H/359/14
HELD AT HARARE ON 6TH JUNE, 2014
CASE NO. LC/H/628/11
AND 20TH JUNE, 2014
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/359/14
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	JUDGMENT NO.LC/H/359/14

HELD AT HARARE ON 6TH JUNE, 2014   CASE NO. LC/H/628/11

AND 20TH JUNE, 2014

In the matter between:-

TREVOR WICKS 								APPLICANT

And

COTTON COMPANY OF ZIMBABWE (PRIVATE)

LIMITED									RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable G. Mhuri, Judge

For Applicant	: Mr. B. Chidziva (Legal Practitioner)

For Respondent: Mr. T. Maanda (Legal Practitioner)

MHURI J.:

This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, against this Court’s judgment of the 8th November, 2013.

In terms of Section 92F(1) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] an appeal on a question of law only shall lie to the Supreme Court.

For the Court to grant leave to appeal it must first be satisfied that the intended grounds of appeal to the Supreme Court raise points of law.  This, the Court can do upon looking at and assessing the proposed grounds as contained in a notice of appeal which Applicant must file together with the application for leave to appeal.  Applicant did not dispute that this ought to have been done.  From the proposed grounds of appeal and the relief being sought an assessment is made and the Court can then decide whether or not Applicant has prospects of success on appeal.

In casu, Applicant did not file his proposed notice of appeal articulating the grounds and relief thereto he seeks the Supreme Court to consider.  The Court was forced to go through the Applicant’s heads of argument sifting through them in order to identify the grounds. The Court had to ask the legal practitioner the relief he would be seeking from the Supreme Court and he stated it with some difficulty.  This should not be the case and should not be allowed moreso from experienced legal practitioners.

I am in total agreement with the Respondent’s submission that if leave is granted and the notice of appeal is finally filed which contains grounds which do not raise a question of law, the Supreme Court will wonder how the application passed this roadblock in the first place.

The failure to file a proposed notice of appeal and the grounds is fatal in my view.  As prayed by Respondent this application cannot be allowed passage to the Supreme Court and it is on that basis that it be and is hereby struck off with costs.

Kantor and Immerman–Appellant’s Legal Practitioners

Maunga and Maanda–Respondent’s Legal Practitioners