Netone Cellar (Pvt) Ltd vs Barnabas Marau (LC/H/188/25) [2026] ZWLC 3 (30 January 2026)

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE JUDGMENT NO LC/H//2026 HARARE, 20 JANUARY 2026 CASE NO LC/H/188/25 & 21 JANUARY 2026 NETONE CELLAR (PVT) LTD APPLICANT AND BARNABAS MARAU RESPONDENT Before the Honourable, Tsikwa, Judge: For Applicant - N. Mangoi, Attorney For Respondent - P. Gomo Attorney TSIKWA, J: The parties were before me on 21 October 2025 for the hearing of an appeal against the decision of the designated agent. Before the appeal could be heard, the appellant (now) respondent raised a point in limine challenging the validity of the resolution on basis that it was general and not specific. After arguments, the Court upheld the point in limine and then treated the matter as unopposed for the reason that the resolution was a legal nullity and that the opposing papers were of no legal force having been filed without requisite authority. Aggrieved by this decision the respondent then filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in terms of Section 92F (2) of the Labour Court Act Chapter 28:01. 1 Before the matter could be heard on merits respondent raised three points in limine as follows: The application was filed out of time and no condonation was sought; therefore improperly before the Court.The application is improperly before the court because one cannot appeal against a default judgment.The application is improperly before the Court because the resolution being a general resolution is defective. Point in limine 1 I shall not detain myself on this one. The electronic record is clear. The application was filed on 19 November 2026. The Registrar however stamped it on the 20th for reasons better known to her but the applicant had complied with the law i.e filing on the 21st day which was the last day. There is no law which bars a party from filing on the last day. Administrative lapses in the Registrar’s office cannot be visited on the applicant. The application was filed during working hours therefore the applicant cannot be blamed. I am of the firm view that there was sufficient compliance with the law. This point in limine is dismissed. Point in limine 2 The judgment by the Court is clear that it granted a default judgment. The Court heard arguments on the validity of the resolution by the applicant. In oral reasons the Court stated that it was treating the appeal as unopposed because of the invalid resolution. In the written reasons furnished on 28 October 2025, on disposition, the court made following statement. “There being no valid resolution authorising deponent to file opposing affidavit on behalf of the respondent, the appeal is therefore treated as unopposed.” This shows that it was a default judgment. Default judgment is not confined to a decision made in the absence of the other party but even where a party is present and barred from addressing the Court for one reason or the other. Reference is made to the case of Guoxing Gong v Mayor Logistics (Pvt) Ltd and Anor SC 2/17 Also quite instructive is the case of Daniel Chitengo v Tredcor Zimbabwe (Private) Limited t/a Trentyre Zimbabwe SC 67/19. (not referred to by the parties). The point in limine is valid and is upheld. Point in limine 3 Again, I do not need to detain myself on this issue. I have already pronounced myself on the validity of board resolution which are generalised in nature in my written reasons furnished to the same parties on 28 October 2025. I dealt offensively with the issue at pages 14 to 16. That decision is extant and I cannot reverse or vary it. Why applicant does not take heed and do a proper and specific resolution it boggles the mind. This ground has got merit and is upheld. Costs Respondent had applied for punitive costs but I do not think its warranted. The applicant had its own view that it was within its right to apply for leave to appeal. May be wording of the order- whereupon perusing papers and hearing Counsel. But Counsel was in court when the pronouncement was made that the application was being treated unopposed because of defective resolution. In my view and the circumstances of the case, costs on a punitive scale are not warranted. Court Order Point in limine number 1 be and is hereby dismissed and points in limine 2 and 3 are upheld. The matter is struck off the roll. The applicant is to pay the costs of this application. TSIKWA J IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE JUDGMENT NO LC/H//2026 HARARE, 20 JANUARY 2026 CASE NO LC/H/188/25 & 21 JANUARY 2026 NETONE CELLAR (PVT) LTD APPLICANT AND BARNABAS MARAU RESPONDENT Before the Honourable, Tsikwa, Judge: For Applicant - N. Mangoi, Attorney For Respondent - P. Gomo Attorney TSIKWA, J: The parties were before me on 21 October 2025 for the hearing of an appeal against the decision of the designated agent. Before the appeal could be heard, the appellant (now) respondent raised a point in limine challenging the validity of the resolution on basis that it was general and not specific. After arguments, the Court upheld the point in limine and then treated the matter as unopposed for the reason that the resolution was a legal nullity and that the opposing papers were of no legal force having been filed without requisite authority. Aggrieved by this decision the respondent then filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in terms of Section 92F (2) of the Labour Court Act Chapter 28:01. 1 Before the matter could be heard on merits respondent raised three points in limine as follows: The application was filed out of time and no condonation was sought; therefore improperly before the Court.The application is improperly before the court because one cannot appeal against a default judgment.The application is improperly before the Court because the resolution being a general resolution is defective. Point in limine 1 I shall not detain myself on this one. The electronic record is clear. The application was filed on 19 November 2026. The Registrar however stamped it on the 20th for reasons better known to her but the applicant had complied with the law i.e filing on the 21st day which was the last day. There is no law which bars a party from filing on the last day. Administrative lapses in the Registrar’s office cannot be visited on the applicant. The application was filed during working hours therefore the applicant cannot be blamed. I am of the firm view that there was sufficient compliance with the law. This point in limine is dismissed. Point in limine 2 The judgment by the Court is clear that it granted a default judgment. The Court heard arguments on the validity of the resolution by the applicant. In oral reasons the Court stated that it was treating the appeal as unopposed because of the invalid resolution. In the written reasons furnished on 28 October 2025, on disposition, the court made following statement. “There being no valid resolution authorising deponent to file opposing affidavit on behalf of the respondent, the appeal is therefore treated as unopposed.” This shows that it was a default judgment. Default judgment is not confined to a decision made in the absence of the other party but even where a party is present and barred from addressing the Court for one reason or the other. Reference is made to the case of Guoxing Gong v Mayor Logistics (Pvt) Ltd and Anor SC 2/17 Also quite instructive is the case of Daniel Chitengo v Tredcor Zimbabwe (Private) Limited t/a Trentyre Zimbabwe SC 67/19. (not referred to by the parties). The point in limine is valid and is upheld. Point in limine 3 Again, I do not need to detain myself on this issue. I have already pronounced myself on the validity of board resolution which are generalised in nature in my written reasons furnished to the same parties on 28 October 2025. I dealt offensively with the issue at pages 14 to 16. That decision is extant and I cannot reverse or vary it. Why applicant does not take heed and do a proper and specific resolution it boggles the mind. This ground has got merit and is upheld. Costs Respondent had applied for punitive costs but I do not think its warranted. The applicant had its own view that it was within its right to apply for leave to appeal. May be wording of the order- whereupon perusing papers and hearing Counsel. But Counsel was in court when the pronouncement was made that the application was being treated unopposed because of defective resolution. In my view and the circumstances of the case, costs on a punitive scale are not warranted. Court Order Point in limine number 1 be and is hereby dismissed and points in limine 2 and 3 are upheld. The matter is struck off the roll. The applicant is to pay the costs of this application. TSIKWA J # BARNABAS MARAU RESPONDENT Before the Honourable, Tsikwa, Judge: For Applicant - N. Mangoi, Attorney For Respondent - P. Gomo Attorney TSIKWA, J: The parties were before me on 21 October 2025 for the hearing of an appeal against the decision of the designated agent. Before the appeal could be heard, the appellant (now) respondent raised a point in limine challenging the validity of the resolution on basis that it was general and not specific. After arguments, the Court upheld the point in limine and then treated the matter as unopposed for the reason that the resolution was a legal nullity and that the opposing papers were of no legal force having been filed without requisite authority. Aggrieved by this decision the respondent then filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in terms of Section 92F (2) of the Labour Court Act Chapter 28:01. 1 Before the matter could be heard on merits respondent raised three points in limine as follows: The application was filed out of time and no condonation was sought; therefore improperly before the Court. The application is improperly before the court because one cannot appeal against a default judgment. The application is improperly before the Court because the resolution being a general resolution is defective. Point in limine 1 I shall not detain myself on this one. The electronic record is clear. The application was filed on 19 November 2026. The Registrar however stamped it on the 20th for reasons better known to her but the applicant had complied with the law i.e filing on the 21st day which was the last day. There is no law which bars a party from filing on the last day. Administrative lapses in the Registrar’s office cannot be visited on the applicant. The application was filed during working hours therefore the applicant cannot be blamed. I am of the firm view that there was sufficient compliance with the law. This point in limine is dismissed. ## Point in limine 1 I shall not detain myself on this one. The electronic record is clear. The application was filed on 19 November 2026. The Registrar however stamped it on the 20th for reasons better known to her but the applicant had complied with the law i.e filing on the 21st day which was the last day. There is no law which bars a party from filing on the last day. Administrative lapses in the Registrar’s office cannot be visited on the applicant. The application was filed during working hours therefore the applicant cannot be blamed. I am of the firm view that there was sufficient compliance with the law. This point in limine is dismissed. Point in limine 2 The judgment by the Court is clear that it granted a default judgment. The Court heard arguments on the validity of the resolution by the applicant. In oral reasons the Court stated that it was treating the appeal as unopposed because of the invalid resolution. In the written reasons furnished on 28 October 2025, on disposition, the court made following statement. “There being no valid resolution authorising deponent to file opposing affidavit on behalf of the respondent, the appeal is therefore treated as unopposed.” This shows that it was a default judgment. Default judgment is not confined to a decision made in the absence of the other party but even where a party is present and barred from addressing the Court for one reason or the other. Reference is made to the case of Guoxing Gong v Mayor Logistics (Pvt) Ltd and Anor SC 2/17 Also quite instructive is the case of Daniel Chitengo v Tredcor Zimbabwe (Private) Limited t/a Trentyre Zimbabwe SC 67/19. (not referred to by the parties). The point in limine is valid and is upheld. ## Point in limine 2 The judgment by the Court is clear that it granted a default judgment. The Court heard arguments on the validity of the resolution by the applicant. In oral reasons the Court stated that it was treating the appeal as unopposed because of the invalid resolution. In the written reasons furnished on 28 October 2025, on disposition, the court made following statement. “There being no valid resolution authorising deponent to file opposing affidavit on behalf of the respondent, the appeal is therefore treated as unopposed.” This shows that it was a default judgment. Default judgment is not confined to a decision made in the absence of the other party but even where a party is present and barred from addressing the Court for one reason or the other. Reference is made to the case of Guoxing Gong v Mayor Logistics (Pvt) Ltd and Anor SC 2/17 Also quite instructive is the case of Daniel Chitengo v Tredcor Zimbabwe (Private) Limited t/a Trentyre Zimbabwe SC 67/19. (not referred to by the parties). The point in limine is valid and is upheld. Point in limine 3 Again, I do not need to detain myself on this issue. I have already pronounced myself on the validity of board resolution which are generalised in nature in my written reasons furnished to the same parties on 28 October 2025. I dealt offensively with the issue at pages 14 to 16. That decision is extant and I cannot reverse or vary it. Why applicant does not take heed and do a proper and specific resolution it boggles the mind. This ground has got merit and is upheld. ## Point in limine 3 Again, I do not need to detain myself on this issue. I have already pronounced myself on the validity of board resolution which are generalised in nature in my written reasons furnished to the same parties on 28 October 2025. I dealt offensively with the issue at pages 14 to 16. That decision is extant and I cannot reverse or vary it. Why applicant does not take heed and do a proper and specific resolution it boggles the mind. This ground has got merit and is upheld. Costs Respondent had applied for punitive costs but I do not think its warranted. The applicant had its own view that it was within its right to apply for leave to appeal. May be wording of the order- whereupon perusing papers and hearing Counsel. But Counsel was in court when the pronouncement was made that the application was being treated unopposed because of defective resolution. In my view and the circumstances of the case, costs on a punitive scale are not warranted. ## Costs Respondent had applied for punitive costs but I do not think its warranted. The applicant had its own view that it was within its right to apply for leave to appeal. May be wording of the order- whereupon perusing papers and hearing Counsel. But Counsel was in court when the pronouncement was made that the application was being treated unopposed because of defective resolution. In my view and the circumstances of the case, costs on a punitive scale are not warranted. Court Order Point in limine number 1 be and is hereby dismissed and points in limine 2 and 3 are upheld. The matter is struck off the roll. The applicant is to pay the costs of this application. TSIKWA J ## Court Order Point in limine number 1 be and is hereby dismissed and points in limine 2 and 3 are upheld. The matter is struck off the roll. The applicant is to pay the costs of this application. TSIKWA J