Unifreight Limited V Godfrey Chimbambo

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/103/14
HELD AT HARARE 18TH FEBRUARY 2014
CASE NO
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	JUDGMENT NO LC/H/103/14

HELD AT HARARE 18TH FEBRUARY 2014		CASE NO LC/H/791/12

& 28TH FEBRUARY 2014

In the matter between:-

UNIFREIGHT LIMITED			Applicant

And

GODFREY CHIMBAMBO			Respondent

Before The Honourable R.F. Manyangadze, Judge

(IN CHAMBERS)

MANYANGADZE, J:

This is an application for the dismissal of the respondent’s appeal for want of prosecution.  The application has been made in terms of Rule 19 (3) (a) of the Labour Court Rules, S.I. 59/2006 (The Rules), on the basis that the respondent has not filed heads of argument.

Section 19 (1) (a) requires an appellant to lodge heads of argument within 14 days of receiving a notice of response to the appeal.

The sequence of events in this case, from the record, is that respondent (appellant) filed his notice of appeal on 3 October 2012.  The applicant (Respondent) filed an application for condonation for the late filing of a notice of response on 19 February 2013, 4 months after the notice of appeal.  That application was granted on 10 October 2013.

The applicant (respondent in main appeal) went on to file its own heads of argument, without having seen the heads of argument from the respondent (appellant in main appeal) on 5 March 2013.  It now wants the respondent (appellant) to be penalised for failing to respond to those heads of argument within 14 days.

What I find procedurally anomalous in this case is that the applicant filed its application for dismissal of the appeal on 26 September 2013, before its application for condonation of late filing of notice of response was granted.  Before it had received forgiveness for its own transgression of the Court’s rules, whilst its prayer for condonation was pending, applicant approached the court for an order based on respondent’s alleged transgression of the Rules.

In my view, the application for dismissal of the appeal is not properly before the court.  It was brought when applicant was yet to be condoned for late filing of the notice of response, after which respondent (Appellant) was to then file his heads of argument.  In the circumstances, I am unable to grant the prayer sought by the applicant.

It is accordingly ORDERED THAT

The application for dismissal of respondent’s appeal be and is hereby dismissed.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

R.F. MANYANGADZE

JUDGE