RAINBOW TOURISM GROUP
(1) FARAI KABASA
(2) SHERIFF HARARE N.O.
SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE
HARARE, FEBRUARY 13 & JULY 24, 2014
A Maguchu, for the applicant
I Mataka, for the first respondent
No appearance for the second respondent
Before: CHIDYAUSIKU, CJ, In Chambers
This is a Chamber application in which the applicant seeks the relief set out in the draft order. The draft order reads as follows:
“IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. The urgent Chamber application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court be and is hereby granted.
2. The second respondent be and is hereby interdicted from selling in execution the applicant’s movable goods in pursuit of the writ of execution issued by the High Court in Case No. HC 8712/13.
3. There shall be no order as to costs if the respondent does not oppose this application. In the event that it does, the respondent be and is hereby ordered to pay costs of the application.”
The facts of the matter are briefly as follows.
The first respondent (hereinafter referred to as “Kabasa”) was an employee of the applicant. The applicant discharged Kabasa. Kabasa disputed the lawfulness of the discharge. The matter was referred to arbitration for determination. On 11 September 2012 the applicant was ordered by the arbitrator to reinstate Kabasa or pay him damages. On 25 September 2012 the applicant appealed to the Labour Court. On 8 May 2013 the applicant applied to the Labour Court for an order staying the enforcement of the award pending a hearing of the appeal. The application was set down for hearing on 21 November 2013. The hearing of the application was postponed at the request of Kabasa. Kabasa took the opportunity created by the postponement to register the arbitration award with the High Court and cause the attachment of the applicant’s goods. Faced with the danger of losing its goods through execution, the applicant made an urgent application for an interdict to stay execution pending the determination of the applicant’s appeal to the Labour Court. At the hearing Kabasa contended that he had since registered the award with the High Court. He argued that the award was now an order of the High Court which, it was submitted, could not be stayed by the Labour Court. This submission found favour with the Labour Court and the application for interim relief was dismissed. The Labour Court concluded that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for interim relief as the award had become a High Court order through registration. The applicant sought leave from the Honourable Judge of the Labour Court to appeal against that determination. The application for leave to appeal was refused. The applicant now seeks leave of a Judge of the Supreme Court for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and also for the interim relief set out in the draft order.