Zimbabwe Electricity Transmission Company V Elfreda Masango

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/682/2016
HARARE, 9 MARCH 2016 &
4 NOVEMBER 2016
CASE NO LC/H/457/10 (MC)
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBAB WE	       JUDGMENT NO LC/H/682/2016

HARARE, 9 MARCH 2016 &				CASE NO LC/H/457/10 (MC)

4 NOVEMBER 2016

In the matter between

ZIMBABWE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION				APPELLANT

COMPANY

Versus

ELFREDA MASANGO							RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable Kudya J

For the Appellant	V Muza (Legal Practitioner)

For the Respondent     T J Mafongoya (Legal Practitioner)

KUDYA J:

This matter was set down on appeal at the instance of the appellant in a decision which was made in favour of the respondent employee. On the hearing date the respondent argued that the appeal was bad at law as it did not set out points of law as envisaged by section 98 (1c) of the Labour Act. It is only that preliminary point which is addressed by this judgment.

The main argument advanced is that the manner in which the appeal grounds are couched speak clearly to factual issues which however the appellant has sought to panel beat in its heads of argument. The respondent therefore prayed that the appeal be struck off the roll for non-compliance with the rules.

In response to the arguments the appellant was adamant that its grounds were regular as they seek to cast aspersions on how the arbitrator interpreted the law. Each of the appeal grounds will be looked at and decided whether they do pass the point of law test or not.

Ground 1

This ground shows that what the arbitrator is said to have done is to have failed to take into account certain facts in the job matrix. The way the ground is couched clearly shows that the attack is on arbitrator’s failure to take into account the matrix not an interpretation of the same. That in the court’s view is purely factual and has to be properly worded to bring out the argument which the appellant really wants to advance about the ill interpretation of the document.

Ground 2

Whilst the appellant argues that it is a mere elucidation of ground one it ispatently clear that what is advanced therein is fact and gets nowhere on the point of law as envisaged by the Sable case.

Ground 3

The punctuation of the ground seems to raise a point of law but as the paragraph progresses it speaks effectively to factual concerns on the matter which by no stretch can be styled point of law. In the ultimate it is clear that the objection is merited and the point in limine is to be upheld.

IT IS ORDERD THAT

The point in limine being merited it be and hereby succeeds. The appeal is struck off the roll with no order as to costs on account of the ill cited appeal grounds.

Muza & Nyapadi, appellant’s legal practitioners

Matsikidze & Mucheche, respondent’s legal practitioners