UNKNOWN (parties not clearly named in the document)

### Preamble
THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/65/24
---------


Before the Honourable L. Hove, Judge:

For applicant :	Mr. M. Ncube

For respondent :	Mr. P. T. Chakanyuka

This is an application for condonation for the late filing of an application for review. The application is opposed.

At the hearing of the application, a preliminary point was raised by the respondent. The respondent argued that the applicant had failed to comply with the provisions of Rule 11 A (4) of the Labour Court Rules, 2017 (as amended) (the Rules).

It was argued that the rule is couched in peremptory terms and requires that every appellant or applicant shall provide an alternative or email address for the purpose of service or delivery of pleadings. The applicant in casu, it was submitted, had failed to comply with this rule, he had failed to provide the email address in the application and also failed to provide the email address in the draft application for review. It was further argued that numerous cases have made the position of law very clear that where the rules are phrased in peremptory terms, nothing but strict compliance is required.

See the case of Delta Beverages (private) Limited v Zimbabwe Revenue Authority SC 9/19.

In the Labour Court however, the Court can condone departure from any of its rules where it is satisfied that the departure is required in the interest of Justice fairness and equity. This is in terms of rule 32 of the Rules. That rule does not distinguish between peremptory and other permissive rules of the Court. It gives the Court a wide discretion to condone departure from the rules wherever it is satisfied that the departure is required in the furtherance of justice, fairness and equity.

In the case of Dalyn Mine v Musa Banda SC 39/99, the point was made that in Labour matters, the court should not decide Labour matters on the basis of legal technicalities but on the basis of the merits of the matter. The court went further to explain that this did not mean that legal technicalities are unimportant and should be ignored willy nilly, but should be put right.

The applicant has argued in response placing reliance on the Proton Bakery (pvt) Ltd v Takaendesa SC 26/04 that;

“this court has in the past emphasized the need to avoid determining matters on the basis of technical irregularities in Labour disputes, particularly where such irregularities can be

cured.”

Several other cases make the same point see also Thousand Gadziwani Natpak (private) Limited 15/19.

The rules of the Labour Court also take note of this need to not resolve Labour disputes on the basis of technicalities as it gives a Judge the lee way to condone none compliance with the rule when this is required in the interest of Justice fairness and equity. In casu the system (IECMS) has the required email (though it was not provided as per the rules). It would in my opinion not be in the interest of justice and fairness to dispose of the matter on this basis, it is a matter that can be cured or made right by the filing of the email address in terms of the rules.

I do not believe that it is in the interest of Justice, fairness on equity to strike the matter off the roll on the basis that there is no email address. The court will therefore proceed in terms of Rule 32 and condone the non-compliance. Further, the court directs that the applicant files the email address in terms of the rules within 10 days of this order.

The preliminary point is accordingly dismissed and the registral will set the matter down for continuation on the merits.