Eric Filon v (1) Public Service Commission (2) The Secretary for Water Resources

The applicant sought leave to appeal from a decision of the Labour Court. The matter came before the Chief Justice in Chambers. The applicant was seeking leave to appeal on a question of law from the Labour Court under section 92F of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. The presiding President who made the original Labour Court decision was unavailable to grant or refuse leave to appeal.

• Who should grant or refuse leave to appeal in terms of section 92F of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] in circumstances where the presiding President is unavailable?
• Whether a Judge of the Supreme Court in Chambers has jurisdiction to determine this question or whether it should be determined by a full bench of the Supreme Court?

The Registrar was directed to set the matter down for hearing before a Court of three Judges. The parties were granted leave to augment their Heads of Argument in respect of the preliminary point and to file Heads of Argument on the merits of the appeal. There was no order as to costs.

Important questions concerning the proper interpretation and application of section 92F of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01], specifically regarding who has jurisdiction to grant or refuse leave to appeal when the presiding President is unavailable, should be determined by a full bench of the Supreme Court (Court of three Judges) rather than by a Judge of the Supreme Court sitting in Chambers.

The Chief Justice observed that to expedite the finalisation of the matter, it would be appropriate for the parties to argue both the preliminary jurisdictional point and the merits of the appeal at the same hearing. This would enable the Court to consider the merits immediately if it concluded that it had jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal, thereby avoiding unnecessary delays and multiple hearings.

This case addresses an important procedural question regarding the application of section 92F of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] in Zimbabwe. It establishes that questions concerning who has jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal from Labour Court decisions when the presiding President is unavailable are sufficiently important to be determined by a full bench of the Supreme Court rather than a single judge in chambers. The case also demonstrates judicial efficiency by allowing preliminary jurisdictional issues and substantive merits to be argued together.