No. SC 39/03
Application No. 269/03
MUCHENJE v BATA SHOE COMPANY
COURT OF ZIMBABWE
NOVEMBER 18 & 26, 2003
CHEDA JA, In Chambers, in terms of s 31(7) of the
Supreme Court Rules
applicant in person
for the respondent
applicant was dismissed from employment by Bata Shoe Company. His
matter went through the labour relations officers, who determined
case in favour of the respondent.
applicant then appealed to the Labour Relations Tribunal (the
Tribunal), but was not successful.
wishes to appeal to this Court but, because of the delay in noting
the appeal, he is now applying for condonation of the
late noting of
the appeal. The application is opposed by the respondent.
the applicant, he received a copy of the order following the hearing
of the Tribunal on 25 June 2003. The reasons
were not there.
He asked for them and was later informed that they had been sent to
the wrong address, despite the fact that he
had informed the
registrar of the Tribunal what his new address was.
applicant was given a copy of the judgment on 8 September 2003.
He noted the appeal on 23 September 2003.
applicant says he did not note an appeal after he received the order
as there were no reasons. The respondent pointed out,
and this is
confirmed by the order of 25 June 2003, that the main reason was
given in the order. The order reads as follows:
failure by the appellant to explain or justify absence of the calls
register or use of the calculator, does not absolve him
2. That in
view of the above, I find no merit in the grounds of appeal.
Accordingly the appeal be and is hereby dismissed.
applicant accepted that this reason was given but says it was
patchy and he wanted full and detailed reasons.
grounds of appeal, the applicant does not deal with the point raised
above. Instead he raises issues which he accepts were
the Tribunal but disagrees with the Tribunals findings on the
facts. He could not give any proper reasons for
the delay other
than that he wanted detailed reasons.
It is clear
that the applicant could have filed his appeal once he received the
order, which told him the reason for the dismissal
of his appeal.
Even the detailed judgment gives the same reason.
condonation of the late noting of the appeal were to be granted on
the basis that the applicant needed more detailed reasons,
application cannot succeed because of three other reasons that stand
in his way.
grounds of appeal simply repeat what he admits to having told the
Tribunal and he then says he does not agree with the
conclusion. For example, he says he wants to show this Court that
the allegations against him were manufactured by
Bata. His contract
had been renewed and he wants to tell this Court how these things
were done. He wants this Court to review
his case. He also
accuses the Tribunal of echoing the sentiments of a labour relations
applicants grounds of appeal do not attack the judgment he is
Tribunal made findings of fact regarding his case. No point of law
arises at all.
of the Labour Relations Act [Chapter 28:01]
provides as follows:
appeal on a question of law from any decision of the Tribunal shall
lie to the Supreme Court.
is, therefore, no room for appealing on a question of fact, except
where it can be shown that there was a misdirection, or the
arrived at was so grossly unreasonable as to justify interference.
the merits, it is not disputed, even by the applicant himself, that
there was a shortfall for which he was dismissed.
He suggested that
his contract of employment provided for recovery of a shortfall by
his employer only. I cannot read this to
mean that where a
shortfall is recovered, the employers general right to dismiss is
removed by the right to recover the shortfall.
there is no merit in the application and it is dismissed with costs.
respondent's legal practitioners