Judgment No. SC 96/02
Civil
Appeal No. 19/02
PHIAS
MARUNZE v LOBELS BROTHERS
SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE
CHIDYAUSIKU CJ, CHEDA JA &
ZIYAMBI JA
HARARE,
OCTOBER 10 & NOVEMBER 11, 2002
E V Shumba,
for the appellant
W
Ncube, for the
respondent
ZIYAMBI JA: The appellant
was suspended from the employ of the respondent on 13 May
1997 and permission sought to dismiss him from the Ministry of
Labour.
Permission
was granted on 24 September
1997, by the labour
relations
officer
(LRO).
An appeal was lodged with the
senior labour relations officer, who upheld the determination of the
LRO. There followed an appeal
to the Labour Relations Tribunal (the
Tribunal). The Tribunal having found in favour of the respondent,
the appellant appealed
to this Court.
In terms of s 92(2) of
the Labour Relations Act, [Chapter 28:01]
(the Act), an appeal lies to the Supreme Court from a decision of the
Tribunal on a question of law only.
The
ground of appeal advanced before the Tribunal and before this Court
was that the respondent had not sought the Ministers approval
for
the dismissal of the appellant, as the letter seeking such permission
was not contained in the record. The Tribunal dealt with
this
ground of appeal thus:
Through
a letter dated 19 May 1997 (the) respondent then made an
application to the Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social
Welfare in terms of SI 371/85. The application letter,
however, is not filed of record, but a reading of the record of
proceedings
by both labour relations officers clearly indicates that
there was such an application. Mr Chagonda, for the respondent,
produced
a copy of this application and also pointed out that the two
labour relations officers mentioned in their proceedings that they
were
dealing with an application made by the respondent in terms of
SI 371 of 1985.
I found as a fact that despite
the absence of (a) copy of the application in the record, the
respondent actually made an application
to the Ministry
.
This
was quite clearly a finding of fact. I agree with Mr Ncube,
for the respondent, that it cannot be appealed against in terms of
s 92(2) of the Act unless it was accompanied by a serious
misdirection amounting to a misdirection in law or the decision was
so outrageous in its defiance of logic that no reasonable court
properly applying its mind could have come to it. The notice of
appeal contains no allegation of such a misdirection in law or
irrationality by the Tribunal. It raises no question of law and is,
therefore, fatally defective and void. See Hama
v National Railways of Zimbabwe
1996 (1) ZLR 664 (S). See also Muzuva
v United Bottlers (Pvt) Ltd
1994 (1) ZLR 217 (S).
The
appeal is accordingly struck off the roll with costs.
CHIDYAUSIKU CJ: I agree.
CHEDA
JA: I agree.
I.f.p.,
for the appellant
Atherstone
& Cook,
respondent's legal practitioners
