DISTRIBUTED BY Veritas makes every effort to ensure the provision of reliable information, but cannot take legal responsibility for information supplied. SHECKEM BARRISTER NGAZIMBI v MUROWA DIAMONDS (PVT) LTD SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE MALABA DCJ, ZIYAMBI JA & OMERJEE AJA HARARE, FERUARY 14, 2012 & JUNE 24, 2013 for the appellant H Zhou, for the respondent T Mpofu, MALABA DCJ: This is an appeal against the judgment of the Labour upholding the decision of the appeals officer to dismiss the appellant from employment with the respondent. At the beginning of the hearing, Mr who appears for the Mpofu respondent raised two points Firstly, he argued that the notice of appeal against the in limine. judgment delivered on 21 February 2011 does not comply with the provisions of s 92F of the Labour Act [Cap. (“the Act”) and is therefore a nullity. The notice of appeal was filed 28:11] by the appellant on 9 March 2011. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was granted by the Labour Court on 2 June 2011. The second point taken was that the grounds of appeal do not raise questions of law as required by s 92F of the Act. The preliminary points were contested by Mr on behalf of the appellant. Zhou Section 92F of the Labour Act [Cap. provides that: 28:01] An appeal on a question of law only shall lie to the Supreme Court from any “1. decision of the Labour Court.
DISTRIBUTED BY Veritas makes every effort to ensure the provision of reliable information, but cannot take legal responsibility for information supplied. SHECKEM BARRISTER NGAZIMBI v MUROWA DIAMONDS (PVT) LTD SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE MALABA DCJ, ZIYAMBI JA & OMERJEE AJA HARARE, FERUARY 14, 2012 & JUNE 24, 2013 H Zhou, for the appellant T Mpofu, for the respondent MALABA DCJ: This is an appeal against the judgment of the Labour upholding the decision of the appeals officer to dismiss the appellant from employment with the respondent. At the beginning of the hearing, Mr Mpofu who appears for the respondent raised two points in limine. Firstly, he argued that the notice of appeal against the judgment delivered on 21 February 2011 does not comply with the provisions of s 92F of the Labour Act [Cap. 28:11] (“the Act”) and is therefore a nullity. The notice of appeal was filed by the appellant on 9 March 2011. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was granted by the Labour Court on 2 June 2011. The second point taken was that the grounds of appeal do not raise questions of law as required by s 92F of the Act. The preliminary points were contested by Mr Zhou on behalf of the appellant. Section 92F of the Labour Act [Cap. 28:01] provides that: “1. An appeal on a question of law only shall lie to the Supreme Court from any decision of the Labour Court.