The applicant sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from a Labour Court decision delivered on 18 December 2013, which he collected on 17 February 2014. He applied for leave to appeal to the Labour Court judge on 27 March 2014. The respondent raised two points in limine: (1) the application was filed out of time as Rule 36 of the Labour Court Rules 2006 required filing within 30 days of the judgment date, and (2) no draft notice of appeal was attached. The applicant did not seek condonation for late filing and maintained he was not out of time. The Labour Court judge upheld the first objection and dismissed the application on procedural grounds without considering the merits. The applicant then sought leave to appeal from the Supreme Court under section 92F(3) of the Labour Act.
The application was struck off the roll with costs.
The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to hear an application for leave to appeal under section 92F(3) of the Labour Act unless two conjunctive requirements are met: (1) an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court has been made before a judge of the Labour Court, and (2) such application has been refused by that judge on the merits. A dismissal by the Labour Court on procedural grounds without hearing the substantive application does not constitute a refusal of leave to appeal for purposes of section 92F(3). Where the Labour Court declines to hear an application due to procedural defects, the remedy to seek leave before the Labour Court remains available, and the Supreme Court cannot assume jurisdiction as a court of first instance on the substantive issue of leave to appeal.
The court observed that the applicant's recalcitrance in approaching the Supreme Court despite being advised by the court a quo to seek condonation was improper and resulted in unnecessary legal costs for the respondent, justifying a costs order. The court also noted that technically, leave to appeal can only be refused in the context of section 92F where the court has made a value judgment on whether the intended appeal raises a question of law and, if so, whether there are prospects of success.
This case clarifies the jurisdictional requirements for the Supreme Court to hear applications for leave to appeal under section 92F(3) of the Labour Act in Zimbabwe. It establishes that the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction is only properly invoked where the Labour Court has made a substantive determination refusing leave to appeal, not where the application was dismissed on procedural grounds without consideration of the merits. The judgment reinforces the principle that courts, as creatures of statute, must operate strictly within their statutory jurisdiction and that procedural requirements must be properly complied with before higher courts can assume jurisdiction. It also clarifies that dismissal for procedural defects does not exhaust the remedy before the lower court, and the applicant retains the right to properly approach that court.