Jongwe Corner(Pvt) Ltd vs Chrishina Kanyongo (LC/H/1029/25) [2026] ZWLC 5 (30 January 2026)

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE JUDGMENT NO LC/H//2025 HARARE, 14 JANUARY, 2026 and 19 JANUARY 2026 CASE NO LC/H/1029/25 JONGWE CORNER (PVT) LTD APPLICANT T/A JONGWE CORNER BAR TIN NO. 2000644533 CHRISHINA KANYONGO RESPONDENT Before the Honourable G. Musariri, Judge: For Applicant - C. Chikore, Attorney For Respondent - N. T. Tsarwe, Attorney MUSARIRI, J: Applicant applied to this Court for rescission of judgment in terms of rule 40 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. Respondent opposed the application. At the onset of oral argument respondent took a point in limine. The point is expatiated in the opposing affidavit as follows, “In Limine 3. There is no valid Court application before the Honourable Court. The purported Court application is fatally defective and does not conform to the form prescribed in terms of the Rules of Court. In terms of Rule 14 (1) of the Labour Court Rules, 2017, a Court application shall be in Form LC1. The rule is mandatory. The form used by Applicant is alieu to the Rules of Court and does not comply with rules. Consequently, the whole application is fatally defective and a nullity which ought to be struck off the roll. 4. In the event that this Honourable Court is not with Respondent as regards the preliminary point raised above, Respondent hereby addresses the merits of the application.” Applicant’s heads of argument countered thus, “The Law (In Brief) (g) It should be noted that a party to court proceedings should comply with the Rules of the Court. But it, should be noted that it’s not an end in itself as a court can condone non-compliance if there is no material departure and if non-compliance does not prejudice the other party. (h) For an order of Rescission of Judgment to be granted, the Applicant should show two things; that he was not in wilful default and there are merits in his favour on the main matter,” Analysis The parties are agreed that the application should be in Form LC1 as prescribed by rule 14 (1) of the Court’s Rules. Form LC1 has two paragraphs. The 1st paragraph notifies respondent of the application and accompanying affidavit and draft order. The application in casu indeed notified respondent of the application and accompanying documents though the wording used does not follow the ipssisma verba of the prescribed form. The 2nd paragraph of Form LC1 notifies respondent of his right to oppose by a notice of opposition filed “within ten (10) working days.” The application in casu omitted such paragraph. The applicable law was set out in the case of Veritas v ZEC 2020 (2) ZLR 225 (S) Per Gowora JCC at P235C “… Contrary to the requirements of Form 29, which are peremptory, there was no attempt to give notice to the respondent of what was required of them to oppose the application. The form excludes those fundamental elements upon which an application is founded, which are material for purposes of giving notice to a respondent of his rights as regards the application. It did not state the dies induciae operating against the respondent for purposes of mounting any opposition. There was not even an attempt to include a summary of the basis upon which the application was being mounted on the face of the application. …. I hold that the application is as a result fatally defective.” By parity of reasoning this Court concludes that the omission of respondent’s procedural rights in the application in casu renders the application fatally defective. Applicant sought to rescue its case by reliance on rule 32 which empowers the Court to condone departures from the rules in appropriate cases. Rule 32 does not empower the Court to condone a nullity. A nullity is nothing and nothing cannot be condoned. Disposition The application stands to be struck off the roll as a nullity. Applicant may revive its quest for rescission as best advised. Wherefore it is ordered that; The application for rescission be and is hereby struck off as a nullity for want of form; and Each party shall bear its own costs. G. MUSARIRI J-U-D-G-E 1 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE JUDGMENT NO LC/H//2025 HARARE, 14 JANUARY, 2026 and 19 JANUARY 2026 CASE NO LC/H/1029/25 JONGWE CORNER (PVT) LTD APPLICANT T/A JONGWE CORNER BAR TIN NO. 2000644533 CHRISHINA KANYONGO RESPONDENT Before the Honourable G. Musariri, Judge: For Applicant - C. Chikore, Attorney For Respondent - N. T. Tsarwe, Attorney MUSARIRI, J: Applicant applied to this Court for rescission of judgment in terms of rule 40 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. Respondent opposed the application. At the onset of oral argument respondent took a point in limine. The point is expatiated in the opposing affidavit as follows, “In Limine 3. There is no valid Court application before the Honourable Court. The purported Court application is fatally defective and does not conform to the form prescribed in terms of the Rules of Court. In terms of Rule 14 (1) of the Labour Court Rules, 2017, a Court application shall be in Form LC1. The rule is mandatory. The form used by Applicant is alieu to the Rules of Court and does not comply with rules. Consequently, the whole application is fatally defective and a nullity which ought to be struck off the roll. 4. In the event that this Honourable Court is not with Respondent as regards the preliminary point raised above, Respondent hereby addresses the merits of the application.” Applicant’s heads of argument countered thus, “The Law (In Brief) (g) It should be noted that a party to court proceedings should comply with the Rules of the Court. But it, should be noted that it’s not an end in itself as a court can condone non-compliance if there is no material departure and if non-compliance does not prejudice the other party. (h) For an order of Rescission of Judgment to be granted, the Applicant should show two things; that he was not in wilful default and there are merits in his favour on the main matter,” Analysis The parties are agreed that the application should be in Form LC1 as prescribed by rule 14 (1) of the Court’s Rules. Form LC1 has two paragraphs. The 1st paragraph notifies respondent of the application and accompanying affidavit and draft order. The application in casu indeed notified respondent of the application and accompanying documents though the wording used does not follow the ipssisma verba of the prescribed form. The 2nd paragraph of Form LC1 notifies respondent of his right to oppose by a notice of opposition filed “within ten (10) working days.” The application in casu omitted such paragraph. The applicable law was set out in the case of Veritas v ZEC 2020 (2) ZLR 225 (S) Per Gowora JCC at P235C “… Contrary to the requirements of Form 29, which are peremptory, there was no attempt to give notice to the respondent of what was required of them to oppose the application. The form excludes those fundamental elements upon which an application is founded, which are material for purposes of giving notice to a respondent of his rights as regards the application. It did not state the dies induciae operating against the respondent for purposes of mounting any opposition. There was not even an attempt to include a summary of the basis upon which the application was being mounted on the face of the application. …. I hold that the application is as a result fatally defective.” By parity of reasoning this Court concludes that the omission of respondent’s procedural rights in the application in casu renders the application fatally defective. Applicant sought to rescue its case by reliance on rule 32 which empowers the Court to condone departures from the rules in appropriate cases. Rule 32 does not empower the Court to condone a nullity. A nullity is nothing and nothing cannot be condoned. Disposition The application stands to be struck off the roll as a nullity. Applicant may revive its quest for rescission as best advised. Wherefore it is ordered that; The application for rescission be and is hereby struck off as a nullity for want of form; and Each party shall bear its own costs. G. MUSARIRI J-U-D-G-E 1 1 1