This
is an Application for Directions brought before me in terms of Order 23 of the
High Court, Civil Rules, 1971.
On
the 17th June 2014, under case number HC1370/14, the applicant filed
a Chamber Application in this court seeking an order to restrain disciplinary
proceedings scheduled for the 19th June 2014. The applicant
avers that there was a typing error in that the hearing was not set down for
the 19th May 2014 but for the 19th June 2014. The
application was placed before MOYO J who commented as follows:-
“1.
The application does not comply with Rule 242(2)(a) as there are no averments
as to urgency.
2.
Applicant also files an application on 17th June 2014 to restrain
proceedings that are scheduled for 19th May 2014. The
application has thus been overtaken by events.
3.
This is purely a labour matter and the Applicant should approach the Labour
Court for any complaint or relief against the Respondents. Refer to
section 89 of the Labour Act. No order.”
The
applicant proceeded to file an Urgent Application with the Labour Court seeking
the same relief, that is to say, a stay of the disciplinary hearing.
On
the 27th June 2014, the matter was placed before the Labour Court
and the Honourable KABASA, judge of the Labour Court issued the following
order;
“1.
The application is for an interdict, seeking to stop the Respondent from
proceeding with a disciplinary hearing and
2.
The court has no jurisdiction to grant interdicts.
3.
The application is hereby dismissed.”
The
applicant contends that he is now confused and does not know what course of
action he should take. The applicant seems to suggest that he finds
himself in limbo in that both the High Court and the Labour Court have
pronounced that they have no jurisdiction to entertain his application.
The
applicant thus seeks directions from this court.
The
applicant further states that he has approached this court for his own benefit
and also for the benefit of his fellow workers who should not know which court
they can approach when faced with the same predicament.
The
matter seems clear and straight forward to me. The Labour Act [Chapter
28:01], under section 89(6) provides that:
“No
court, other than the Labour Court, shall have jurisdiction in the first
instance to hear and determine any application, appeal or matter referred to in
subsection(1).”
This
matter falls squarely under the jurisdiction of the Labour Court which enjoys
full jurisdiction to deal with and determine applications in terms of the
Labour Act. The applicant is therefore directed to approach the Labour
Court for appropriate relief. There is no need to order the parties to
file Heads of Argument in the matter. The issues should be directed to the
Labour Court where the application to restrain the respondents from hearing the
disciplinary proceedings ought to be entertained.
In
the result, the application is hereby struck off with no order as to costs.
