Twenty Third Century Systems V Newton Madzikwa

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGEMENT NO. LC/H/740/13
HELD IN HARARE, 12 NOVEMBER, 2013 &
CASE NO. LC/CON/H/164/12
14TH FEBRUARY, 2014
JUDGEMENT NO. LC/H/740/13
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE 	         JUDGEMENT NO. LC/H/740/13

HELD IN HARARE, 12 NOVEMBER, 2013 &             CASE NO. LC/CON/H/164/12

14TH FEBRUARY, 2014

In the Matter Between

TWENTY THIRD CENTURY SYSTEMS	 				Applicant

And

NEWTON MADZIKWA							Respondent

Before The Honourable E. Makamure:	Judge

For Applicant	 :	Mr Chingoma (Legal Practitioner)

For Respondent:  	Mr Bhebhe (Legal Practitioner)

MAKAMURE E.,

This matter was determined on the basis of the record as agreed to by the parties’ respective legal practitioners.

This is an application for condonation of late noting of appeal. In order for an application of this nature to succeed, the following considerations must be made.

Whether the extent of the delay was inordinate regard being had to the circumstances of the case

Whether a reasonable explanation for the delay was proffered

Whether there are prospects of success should the matter be heard on the merits.

See Chubb Union Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd vs. Chubb Union Workers SC 1/2001 (Chubb Union). In the present case the appellant received a decision from the Arbitrator who had determined the matter on 10 September 2012. The appellant filed the application for late noting of appeal on 11 October 2012. On the face of it the delay is not inordinate. The legal practitioner failed to file the papers timeously because the Secretary who normally prepares or “pulls out” the records was ill and therefore not at work. I think that the explanation is honest. Can it be said that the absence of the legal practitioner’s Secretary is a reasonable explanation for the legal practitioner’s failure to check his own diary?  I think not.  I am of the view that a legal practitioner ought to have a plan on how to manage his or her office in cases of emergency.

The explanation by the legal practitioner in my view is not reasonable (see Highline Motor Spares (1993) (Pvt) Ltd and Ors vs. Zimbabwe Corporation Ltd 2002 (1) ZLR 514 (s) and Chubb Union (above). Legal Practitioners are urged to take this Court seriously. The relief of condonation should be granted to a litigant who is serious and takes the Labour Court seriously. However in view of the need to finalise litigation and not determine matters on the basis of technicalities the relief sought will be granted.

Having stated the above it is ordered that the application be and is hereby granted. Costs to be costs in the cause.

Dube, Manikai & Hwacha – applicant’s legal practitioners

Kantor & Immerman – respondent’s legal practitioners