Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation v Benania Shumba

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF
JUDGEMENT NO. LC/H/300/25
ZIMBABWE HELD AT HARARE 19
CASE NO. LC/H/493/25
AUGUST 2025
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE HELD AT HARARE 19 AUGUST 2025

JUDGEMENT NO. LC/H/300/25 CASE NO.	LC/H/493/25

IN THE MATTER BETRWEEN:

ZIMBABWE BROADCASTING CORPORATION	APPLICANT AND

BENANIA SHUMBA	RESPONDENT

Before Honourable Mr. Justice L.M. Murasi

IN CHAMBERS

MURASI J.,

This is an application for condonation and extension of the late noting of an application for review and an appeal.

In a letter dated 14 August 2025, Applicant has made the following request:

“We had a hearing scheduled for 22 July 2025 before Honourable Judge Murasi at 10.00 am. Due to a conflict of schedule, we kindly requested the postponement of the hearing of the matter in a letter attached hereto and marked Annexure ‘A’.

We now kindly request that the matter be set down for hearing.”

The Court is clearly astounded by the nature of the request having regard to what transpired on 22 July 2025. The Applicant was represented by Mr. Nderere who made the application for postponement. After his submissions, the Court drew to his attention what Applicant had indeed filed in the documents pertaining to the present application. This was a judgment by this Court rendered in Case Number LC/H/1066/24. After a brief exchange of pleasantries, Mr. Nderere informed the Court that he therefore was requesting the Court to remove the matter from the roll. The Court proceeded to remove the matter from the roll and gave the requisite Order. It is surprising that the Applicant does not in any way refer to these happenings. In that hearing, Mr. Nderere undertook to bring the issue raised by the Court to the attention of the legal practitioner handling the matter.

The following is the issue raised by the Court when Mr. Nderere appeared on 22 July 2025. Case Number LC/H/1066/25 was heard on 26 March 2025. Advocate Uriri appeared on behalf of the Applicant whilst Mr. Kabuya appeared for the Respondent. Judgement was rendered by this Court in that matter on 28 April 2025. The operative part of the judgment reads as follows:

The appeal partially succeeds.

Ground of appeal 2.3 be and is hereby upheld.

Ground 2.4, being devoid of merit, be and is hereby dismissed.

The arbitral award be is hereby set aside in part and substituted with the following;

The matter is remitted back for re-quantification on the question of damages due to the Appellant on the unexpired term of the contract of employment before the same arbitrator.”

The above clearly shows that the matter between the parties was heard on the merits and that judgment is extant. It is therefore surprising that the Applicant would then seek to apply for condonation of the late filing of an appeal in the same matter. The Court is of the view that the legal practitioners concerned should show some degree of competence exhibiting due diligence in handling litigation. This is clearly evidence of lack of diligence and tardiness on the part of the legal practitioners concerned. The Court expresses its concern about such behaviour. The Courts are already inundated with a lot of work and it is quite disconcerting to have legal practitioners push their invalid applications at the doorsteps of the courtroom.

AS stated by McNALLY JA in Ndebele v Ncube 1992 (1) ZLR 288 (S), there must be finality to litigation. Striking the matter off from the roll does not finalize the matter but merely means the matter will be filed again thus clogging the court system with recycled cases. The Court also takes judicial notice that the Applicant is a State entity and it evident that scarce financial resources are being put to such seemingly unending litigation when the Applicant is not paying heed to an extant Court Order.

The Registrar of this Court is thus directed to bring this judgment to the attention of the Chief Executive Officer of the Applicant.

Costs should follow the cause.

In the result, the application for condonation of the late filing of an application for review and an appeal is hereby dismissed with costs.