Violet Mukombo v Chikomba Rural District Council

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/149/2025
HARARE, 28 JANUARY, 2025
CASE NO LC/H/1100/24
VIOLET MUKOMBO
APPLICANT
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	         	JUDGMENT NO LC/H/149/2025

HARARE, 28 JANUARY, 2025                             		CASE NO LC/H/1100/24

VIOLET MUKOMBO						APPLICANT

CHIKOMBA RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL		 	RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable G. Musariri, Judge:

For Applicant			- T.E Mudzuri, Attorney

For Respondent		- P. Donzvambeva, Attorney

MUSARIRI, J:

Applicant applied for condonation of a belated application for leave to appeal this Court’s judgment referenced LCH 84/23 to the Supreme Court. Respondent opposed the application.

At the onset of oral argument the Court pressed applicant to cite the legal basis for the application. This was in light of the fact that the Court has previously in a different matter ruled that there is no legal basis for such an application in the Labour Court Rules, 2017. Applicant’s response was to apply for directions under Rule 32 on the basis that there is a lacuna in the Rules.

The Rules provide for condonation in Rule 22 which provides that;

“(1.) 	A party wishing to apply for condonation of the late noting of an appeal or review shall do so in Form LC1.

(2.)	An application in terms of this rule shall be accompanied by a draft of the intended notice of appeal or review.”

The Rule provides applications for condonation of a belated appeal or review. It does not provide for condonation of a late application for leave to appeal. This conclusion is buttressed by the dicta in the case of

NRZ V ZRAU 2005(1) ZLR 341(S)

Per Ziyambi JA at 347A

“Thus before an application can be entertained by the Labour Court, it must be satisfied that such an application is an application ‘in terms of this (Labour) Act or any other enactment.’ This necessarily means that the Act or other enactment must specifically provide for applications to the Labour Court, of the type that the applicant seeks to bring:”

Applicant beseeched the Court to invoke Rule 32 in her favor. The Rule provides that;

“At any time before or during the hearing of a matter a Judge or the Court may-

direct, authorise or condone a departure from any of these rules, including an extension of any period specified therein, where the Judge or Court is satisfied that the departure is required in the interests of justice, fairness and equity;

give such directions as to procedure in respect of any matter not expressly provided for in these rules as appear to the Judge of the Court to be just, expedient and equitable."

Applicant did not specify how the Rule applies in casu or what kind of direction/s she required. However the point is that the Rule applies to a matter already pending before a Judge or the Court. In casu there is no pending matter because the judgment LCH 84/23, sought to be appealed, concluded the matter that was before the Court. Therefore Rule 32 is inapplicable in this case.

It is therefore concluded that there is no valid basis for the present application which necessarily stands to be struck off as a nullity.

Wherefore it is ordered that,

The application for condonation be and is hereby struck off the roll as a nullity; and

Each party shall bear its own costs.

G. MUSARIRI

J-U-D-G-E