Mazowe Mine v Leonard Mlauzi

The applicant employer dismissed the respondent employee on allegations of gold theft. The respondent appealed to the Labour Court, which granted the appeal on the grounds that the theft allegation had not been proved. The Labour Court judgment was served on the applicant's legal practitioners on 3 March 2005. The legal practitioners advised Mr B Mons of Metallon Gold Mining (Pvt) Ltd about the judgment and right to appeal, but no appeal was noted within the prescribed time. The applicant then applied to the Supreme Court for leave to file an appeal out of time.

• Whether leave should be granted to file an appeal out of time
• Whether there was reasonable explanation for the delay in noting the appeal
• Whether the matter involved a question of law appealable to the Supreme Court under section 92(2) of the Labour Relations Act

Leave to file an appeal to the Supreme Court out of time was dismissed with costs.

Under section 92(2) of the Labour Relations Act [Chapter 28:01], appeals from the Labour Court to the Supreme Court lie only on questions of law. Findings of fact by the Labour Court, including findings on whether alleged misconduct has been proved, are not appealable to the Supreme Court. An application for leave to appeal out of time must be supported by adequate explanation for the delay, including confirmatory evidence where communication breakdowns are alleged.

The court observed that while Labour Court judgments are not handed down in the same manner as High Court and Supreme Court judgments, parties have a duty to make follow-up inquiries to ascertain when judgment is ready after a matter has been stood down for judgment. This observation emphasizes the responsibility of litigants to be proactive in monitoring the progress of their cases.

This case clarifies the limited appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in labour matters under Zimbabwean law. It reinforces that appeals from the Labour Court to the Supreme Court are restricted to questions of law only under section 92(2) of the Labour Relations Act, and that factual findings of the Labour Court are not appealable to the Supreme Court. The case also emphasizes the importance of proper communication chains between litigants and their legal practitioners, and the duty of parties to follow up on judgments and comply with time limits for noting appeals.