Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation v Named Retrenchees

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/223/2019
HARARE, 10 JUNE 2019
AND 28 JUNE 2019
CASE NO. LC/H/APP/997/18
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE  	            JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/223/2019

HARARE, 10 JUNE 2019					CASE NO. LC/H/APP/997/18

AND 28 JUNE 2019

In the matter between:

ZIMBABWE BROADCASTING CORPORATION

NAMED RETRENCHEES							APPLICANTS

versus

ZIMBABWE BROADCASTING CORPORATION			RESPONDENT

Before The Honourable Makamure J,

For the Applicant			E. T. Nhachi (Legal Practitioner)

For the Respondent 			Ms R. Magundani  (Legal Practitioner)

MAKAMURE J:

This is an application for ‘an order’. The draft is couched as follows:

“(1) The application for quantification in United States Dollars be and is hereby granted.

The Respondent is hereby ordered to pay the Retrenchees as follows:

Innocencia C. Chitauro	US$10 663-38

Cosmas Chitauro		US$2 793-36

Respondent to pay costs of suit.”

The application is opposed.

In 2005 the present respondent filed an appeal with this court. The appeal was dismissed in judgment LC/H/70/2005.

At the time that the judgment was granted the respondent was trying to resile from an agreement it had entered with certain of its employees who are listed in the main record. The court dismissed the appeal and adopted the agreement between the parties as the judgment of the court.

On 5 June 2019 some fourteen (14) years later the applicants seek to have this court quantify the order it made in 2005.

It is common cause that in 2005 the legal tender was the Zimbabwe Dollar. The application seeks to have this court pronounce or quantify its judgment in US Dollar. There is no indication that after the order was granted by this court the named employees appealed the order.

The responded raised a preliminary issue that is that the claim filed by the applicants has prescribed. On this basis alone the respondent submits that the application must be dismissed.

When this court made its order in March 2005, it became functus officio. It lost control over the matter. The only way that the court can have authority to deal with it is if there was an order from the Supreme Court directing it to quantify its order. It also should be noted that the terms of the order in judgment LC/H/70/2005 was a result of an agreement between the parties. All that the court did was to rein in one of the parties who had decided to resile from an agreement which parties had freely entered into. In the case of National Railways of Zimbabwe v

Zimbabwe Railway Artisans Union

Railways Association of Enginemen

Zimbabwe Amalgamated Railwaymen Union SC 8/05;

The Supreme Court stated that:

“The general principle, now well established in our law, is that once a court has pronounced a final judgment or order, it has itself no authority to correct, alter or supplement it. The reason is that the court thereupon becomes functus officio : its jurisdiction in the case having been fully and finally exercised, its authority over the matter ceases.”

So whether or not the matter has prescribed, this court no longer has jurisdiction over the matter.

On the question of prescription, as submitted on behalf of the respondent section 15 (d) of the Presumption Act provides that “except where any enactment provides otherwise, three years in the case of any other debt” shall be the period of prescription.

It is more than three years since the court pronounced the order. This means that the claim has prescribed.

In the circumstances therefore, it is clear that as the court has become functus officio. This means that, firstly, the matter is not properly before me for want of jurisdiction. Secondly the claim has prescribed.

In view of the foregoing the application cannot succeed.

Accordingly, it is ordered that the application be and is hereby dismissed.

Each party bears its own costs.

Mapendere And Partners, Applicants’ Legal Practitioners

Scanlen & Holderness, Respondent’s Legal Practitioners