Portion Makhwelo and 115 Others v N.I.M.R. and Chapman (Pvt) Ltd

The applicant, Portion Makhwelo, initially brought an application together with 115 other applicants seeking to have disciplinary proceedings instituted by the respondent (their employer) declared null and void. At the hearing, the applicant's counsel conceded that the other 115 applicants were not properly before the court, and the matter proceeded with Makhwelo only. The applicant sought a provisional order which was not granted; instead, a judge directed that the matter be set down for argument as an opposed application. The disciplinary committee decision was made on 5 October 2000, but the applicant only lodged his application on 18 January 2001, well after the 8-week period stipulated by the rules of court. No application for condonation was made. The applicant also failed to exhaust domestic remedies, explaining that time limits had expired, though he conceded that some former colleagues had lodged appeals out of time which were entertained domestically.

• Whether the applicant properly complied with the rules of court for review proceedings
• Whether the applicant should have exhausted domestic remedies before approaching the High Court
• Whether the applicant's failure to apply for condonation for filing out of time was fatal to the application
• Whether the court should entertain a review application in a labour dispute where domestic remedies have not been exhausted

The application was dismissed with costs.

In labour disputes involving disciplinary proceedings, applicants must exhaust domestic remedies available to them before approaching the High Court for review. Additionally, review applications must be brought within the prescribed time limits (8 weeks from the decision), and failure to do so requires an application for condonation. Non-compliance with these procedural requirements will result in dismissal of the application, regardless of the potential merits of the substantive case.

The court observed that domestic remedies would likely have afforded the applicant the relief sought if it was deemed appropriate. The court also noted that the founding affidavit did not properly give the date when the decision under review was made, though this could be ascertained from the papers. The court implicitly suggested that the explanation that time limits had expired domestically was particularly weak given that the applicant himself conceded that other colleagues had successfully lodged out-of-time appeals that were entertained through the domestic process.

This case reinforces important procedural principles in Zimbabwean labour law, particularly: (1) the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies before approaching the High Court in labour disputes; (2) the strict application of time limits for review proceedings; and (3) the necessity of applying for condonation when proceedings are instituted out of time. The case serves as a reminder that failure to comply with procedural requirements, even where substantive grounds for review may exist, will result in dismissal of the application. It demonstrates judicial reluctance to entertain labour disputes where internal dispute resolution mechanisms have not been properly utilized.