Law Portal
Zimbabwe

Welcome To Law Portal

Welcome, Guest!
[Help?]

SC08-11 - ERIC FILON vs PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and THE SECRETARY FOR WATER RESOURCES

  • View Judgment By Categories
  • View Full Judgment


Procedural Law-viz final orders re composition of the Bench iro incapacitation of a presiding officer.
Procedural Law-viz appeal re leave to appeal iro labour proceedings.
Procedural Law-viz leave to appeal re labour proceedings iro section 92 of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01].
Procedural Law-viz judicial precedents re composition of the Bench iro issues determined by a single judge of the Supreme Court sitting in chambers.
Procedural Law-viz judicial precedents re composition of the Bench iro matter determined by a Supreme Court Bench in open court.
Procedural Law-viz judicial directives.
Procedural Law-viz directions of the court.
Procedural Law-viz affidavits re supplementary affidavits iro supplementary heads of argument.
Procedural Law-viz pleadings re expedited set down of matters iro the principle of finality in litigation.
Procedural Law-viz pleadings re expedited set down of hearings iro the principle of finality to litigation.

Appeal, Leave to Appeal, Leave to Execute Pending Appeal re: Grounds of Appeal iro Labour Proceedings


Section 92F of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]..., provides:

"92F Appeals against decisions of Labour Court

(1) An appeal on a question of law only shall lie to the Supreme Court from any decision of the Labour Court.

(2) Any party wishing to appeal from any decision of the Labour Court on a question of law in terms of subsection (1) shall seek from the President who made the decision leave to appeal that decision.

(3) If the President refuses leave to appeal in terms of subsection (2), the party may seek leave from the judge of the Supreme Court to appeal."

Appeal, Leave to Appeal re: Approach, Notice of Appeal and the Right of Appeal iro Labour Proceedings


In Chambers: The legal point raised in this application is:

Who should grant or refuse leave to appeal in terms of section 92F of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] in circumstances where the presiding President is unavailable?

The relevant section provides:

"92F Appeals against decisions of Labour Court

(1) An appeal on a question of law only shall lie to the Supreme Court from any decision of the Labour Court.

(2) Any party wishing to appeal from any decision of the Labour Court on a question of law in terms of subsection (1) shall seek from the President who made the decision leave to appeal that decision.

(3) If the President refuses leave to appeal in terms of subsection (2), the party may seek leave from the judge of the Supreme Court to appeal."

This is an important point that should be determined by the Supreme Court as opposed to a Judge of the Supreme Court in Chambers.

Accordingly, I direct that this matter be set down for hearing before a Court of three Judges.

I also direct, that, at the hearing of this matter, the parties should be ready to argue the matter on the merits. In other words, the parties should first argue the application for leave as a preliminary point and then the merits of the appeal. This will enable the Court to consider the merits of the appeal should it conclude that it can grant the leave to appeal.

Accordingly, the parties in this case are hereby granted leave to augment their Heads of Argument in respect of the preliminary point and to file Heads of Argument on the merits of the appeal.

This approach may expedite the finalisation of this matter.

In the result, the Registrar is directed to set this matter down. There will be no order as to costs.

Appeal, Leave to Appeal, Leave to Execute Pending Appeal re: Approach and the Right of Appeal


In Chambers: The legal point raised in this application is:

Who should grant or refuse leave to appeal in terms of section 92F of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] in circumstances where the presiding President is unavailable?

The relevant section provides:

"92F Appeals against decisions of Labour Court

(1) An appeal on a question of law only shall lie to the Supreme Court from any decision of the Labour Court.

(2) Any party wishing to appeal from any decision of the Labour Court on a question of law in terms of subsection (1) shall seek from the President who made the decision leave to appeal that decision.

(3) If the President refuses leave to appeal in terms of subsection (2), the party may seek leave from the judge of the Supreme Court to appeal."

This is an important point that should be determined by the Supreme Court as opposed to a Judge of the Supreme Court in Chambers.

Accordingly, I direct that this matter be set down for hearing before a Court of three Judges.

I also direct, that, at the hearing of this matter, the parties should be ready to argue the matter on the merits. In other words, the parties should first argue the application for leave as a preliminary point and then the merits of the appeal. This will enable the Court to consider the merits of the appeal should it conclude that it can grant the leave to appeal.

Accordingly, the parties in this case are hereby granted leave to augment their Heads of Argument in respect of the preliminary point and to file Heads of Argument on the merits of the appeal.

This approach may expedite the finalisation of this matter.

In the result, the Registrar is directed to set this matter down. There will be no order as to costs.

Final Orders re: Composition of Bench iro Court Verdict, Incapacitation and Disagreements Between Presiding Officers


In Chambers: The legal point raised in this application is:

Who should grant or refuse leave to appeal in terms of section 92F of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] in circumstances where the presiding President is unavailable?

The relevant section provides:

"92F Appeals against decisions of Labour Court

(1) An appeal on a question of law only shall lie to the Supreme Court from any decision of the Labour Court.

(2) Any party wishing to appeal from any decision of the Labour Court on a question of law in terms of subsection (1) shall seek from the President who made the decision leave to appeal that decision.

(3) If the President refuses leave to appeal in terms of subsection (2), the party may seek leave from the judge of the Supreme Court to appeal."

This is an important point that should be determined by the Supreme Court as opposed to a Judge of the Supreme Court in Chambers.

Accordingly, I direct that this matter be set down for hearing before a Court of three Judges.

I also direct, that, at the hearing of this matter, the parties should be ready to argue the matter on the merits. In other words, the parties should first argue the application for leave as a preliminary point and then the merits of the appeal. This will enable the Court to consider the merits of the appeal should it conclude that it can grant the leave to appeal.

Accordingly, the parties in this case are hereby granted leave to augment their Heads of Argument in respect of the preliminary point and to file Heads of Argument on the merits of the appeal.

This approach may expedite the finalisation of this matter.

In the result, the Registrar is directed to set this matter down. There will be no order as to costs.

Final Orders re: Composition of Bench iro Judicial Precedents, Effect of Ex Post Facto Statutes and Judicial Lag


In Chambers: The legal point raised in this application is:

Who should grant or refuse leave to appeal in terms of section 92F of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] in circumstances where the presiding President is unavailable?

The relevant section provides:

"92F Appeals against decisions of Labour Court

(1) An appeal on a question of law only shall lie to the Supreme Court from any decision of the Labour Court.

(2) Any party wishing to appeal from any decision of the Labour Court on a question of law in terms of subsection (1) shall seek from the President who made the decision leave to appeal that decision.

(3) If the President refuses leave to appeal in terms of subsection (2), the party may seek leave from the judge of the Supreme Court to appeal."

This is an important point that should be determined by the Supreme Court as opposed to a Judge of the Supreme Court in Chambers.

Accordingly, I direct that this matter be set down for hearing before a Court of three Judges.

I also direct, that, at the hearing of this matter, the parties should be ready to argue the matter on the merits. In other words, the parties should first argue the application for leave as a preliminary point and then the merits of the appeal. This will enable the Court to consider the merits of the appeal should it conclude that it can grant the leave to appeal.

Accordingly, the parties in this case are hereby granted leave to augment their Heads of Argument in respect of the preliminary point and to file Heads of Argument on the merits of the appeal.

This approach may expedite the finalisation of this matter.

In the result, the Registrar is directed to set this matter down. There will be no order as to costs.

Jurisdiction re: Approach, Concurrent Jurisdiction, Statutory, Procedural and Contractual Jurisdictional Ousting


In Chambers: The legal point raised in this application is:

Who should grant or refuse leave to appeal in terms of section 92F of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] in circumstances where the presiding President is unavailable?

The relevant section provides:

"92F Appeals against decisions of Labour Court

(1) An appeal on a question of law only shall lie to the Supreme Court from any decision of the Labour Court.

(2) Any party wishing to appeal from any decision of the Labour Court on a question of law in terms of subsection (1) shall seek from the President who made the decision leave to appeal that decision.

(3) If the President refuses leave to appeal in terms of subsection (2), the party may seek leave from the judge of the Supreme Court to appeal."

This is an important point that should be determined by the Supreme Court as opposed to a Judge of the Supreme Court in Chambers.

Accordingly, I direct that this matter be set down for hearing before a Court of three Judges.

I also direct, that, at the hearing of this matter, the parties should be ready to argue the matter on the merits. In other words, the parties should first argue the application for leave as a preliminary point and then the merits of the appeal. This will enable the Court to consider the merits of the appeal should it conclude that it can grant the leave to appeal.

Accordingly, the parties in this case are hereby granted leave to augment their Heads of Argument in respect of the preliminary point and to file Heads of Argument on the merits of the appeal.

This approach may expedite the finalisation of this matter.

In the result, the Registrar is directed to set this matter down. There will be no order as to costs.

Jurisdiction re: Labour Proceedings


In Chambers: The legal point raised in this application is:

Who should grant or refuse leave to appeal in terms of section 92F of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] in circumstances where the presiding President is unavailable?

The relevant section provides:

"92F Appeals against decisions of Labour Court

(1) An appeal on a question of law only shall lie to the Supreme Court from any decision of the Labour Court.

(2) Any party wishing to appeal from any decision of the Labour Court on a question of law in terms of subsection (1) shall seek from the President who made the decision leave to appeal that decision.

(3) If the President refuses leave to appeal in terms of subsection (2), the party may seek leave from the judge of the Supreme Court to appeal."

This is an important point that should be determined by the Supreme Court as opposed to a Judge of the Supreme Court in Chambers.

Accordingly, I direct that this matter be set down for hearing before a Court of three Judges.

I also direct, that, at the hearing of this matter, the parties should be ready to argue the matter on the merits. In other words, the parties should first argue the application for leave as a preliminary point and then the merits of the appeal. This will enable the Court to consider the merits of the appeal should it conclude that it can grant the leave to appeal.

Accordingly, the parties in this case are hereby granted leave to augment their Heads of Argument in respect of the preliminary point and to file Heads of Argument on the merits of the appeal.

This approach may expedite the finalisation of this matter.

In the result, the Registrar is directed to set this matter down. There will be no order as to costs.

Jurisdiction re: Judicial Deference iro Assessment of Prospects on Appeal, Review or Main Proceedings


In Chambers: The legal point raised in this application is:

Who should grant or refuse leave to appeal in terms of section 92F of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] in circumstances where the presiding President is unavailable?

The relevant section provides:

"92F Appeals against decisions of Labour Court

(1) An appeal on a question of law only shall lie to the Supreme Court from any decision of the Labour Court.

(2) Any party wishing to appeal from any decision of the Labour Court on a question of law in terms of subsection (1) shall seek from the President who made the decision leave to appeal that decision.

(3) If the President refuses leave to appeal in terms of subsection (2), the party may seek leave from the judge of the Supreme Court to appeal."

This is an important point that should be determined by the Supreme Court as opposed to a Judge of the Supreme Court in Chambers.

Accordingly, I direct that this matter be set down for hearing before a Court of three Judges.

I also direct, that, at the hearing of this matter, the parties should be ready to argue the matter on the merits. In other words, the parties should first argue the application for leave as a preliminary point and then the merits of the appeal. This will enable the Court to consider the merits of the appeal should it conclude that it can grant the leave to appeal.

Accordingly, the parties in this case are hereby granted leave to augment their Heads of Argument in respect of the preliminary point and to file Heads of Argument on the merits of the appeal.

This approach may expedite the finalisation of this matter.

In the result, the Registrar is directed to set this matter down. There will be no order as to costs.

Court Management re: Approach, Case Management, Postponement of Proceedings and Judicial Directives of the Court


In Chambers: The legal point raised in this application is:

Who should grant or refuse leave to appeal in terms of section 92F of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] in circumstances where the presiding President is unavailable?

The relevant section provides:

"92F Appeals against decisions of Labour Court

(1) An appeal on a question of law only shall lie to the Supreme Court from any decision of the Labour Court.

(2) Any party wishing to appeal from any decision of the Labour Court on a question of law in terms of subsection (1) shall seek from the President who made the decision leave to appeal that decision.

(3) If the President refuses leave to appeal in terms of subsection (2), the party may seek leave from the judge of the Supreme Court to appeal."

This is an important point that should be determined by the Supreme Court as opposed to a Judge of the Supreme Court in Chambers.

Accordingly, I direct that this matter be set down for hearing before a Court of three Judges.

I also direct, that, at the hearing of this matter, the parties should be ready to argue the matter on the merits. In other words, the parties should first argue the application for leave as a preliminary point and then the merits of the appeal. This will enable the Court to consider the merits of the appeal should it conclude that it can grant the leave to appeal.

Accordingly, the parties in this case are hereby granted leave to augment their Heads of Argument in respect of the preliminary point and to file Heads of Argument on the merits of the appeal.

This approach may expedite the finalisation of this matter.

In the result, the Registrar is directed to set this matter down. There will be no order as to costs.

Founding Affidavits re: Supplementary Submissions, Additional Evidence, Closure of Case and the Application to Re-open


In Chambers: The legal point raised in this application is:

Who should grant or refuse leave to appeal in terms of section 92F of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] in circumstances where the presiding President is unavailable?

The relevant section provides:

"92F Appeals against decisions of Labour Court

(1) An appeal on a question of law only shall lie to the Supreme Court from any decision of the Labour Court.

(2) Any party wishing to appeal from any decision of the Labour Court on a question of law in terms of subsection (1) shall seek from the President who made the decision leave to appeal that decision.

(3) If the President refuses leave to appeal in terms of subsection (2), the party may seek leave from the judge of the Supreme Court to appeal."

This is an important point that should be determined by the Supreme Court as opposed to a Judge of the Supreme Court in Chambers.

Accordingly, I direct that this matter be set down for hearing before a Court of three Judges.

I also direct, that, at the hearing of this matter, the parties should be ready to argue the matter on the merits. In other words, the parties should first argue the application for leave as a preliminary point and then the merits of the appeal. This will enable the Court to consider the merits of the appeal should it conclude that it can grant the leave to appeal.

Accordingly, the parties in this case are hereby granted leave to augment their Heads of Argument in respect of the preliminary point and to file Heads of Argument on the merits of the appeal.

This approach may expedite the finalisation of this matter.

In the result, the Registrar is directed to set this matter down. There will be no order as to costs.

Pleadings re: Expedited Set Down of Ordinary Applications & Return Dates of Provisional Orders or Interim Interdicts


In Chambers: The legal point raised in this application is:

Who should grant or refuse leave to appeal in terms of section 92F of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] in circumstances where the presiding President is unavailable?

The relevant section provides:

"92F Appeals against decisions of Labour Court

(1) An appeal on a question of law only shall lie to the Supreme Court from any decision of the Labour Court.

(2) Any party wishing to appeal from any decision of the Labour Court on a question of law in terms of subsection (1) shall seek from the President who made the decision leave to appeal that decision.

(3) If the President refuses leave to appeal in terms of subsection (2), the party may seek leave from the judge of the Supreme Court to appeal."

This is an important point that should be determined by the Supreme Court as opposed to a Judge of the Supreme Court in Chambers.

Accordingly, I direct that this matter be set down for hearing before a Court of three Judges.

I also direct, that, at the hearing of this matter, the parties should be ready to argue the matter on the merits. In other words, the parties should first argue the application for leave as a preliminary point and then the merits of the appeal. This will enable the Court to consider the merits of the appeal should it conclude that it can grant the leave to appeal.

Accordingly, the parties in this case are hereby granted leave to augment their Heads of Argument in respect of the preliminary point and to file Heads of Argument on the merits of the appeal.

This approach may expedite the finalisation of this matter.

In the result, the Registrar is directed to set this matter down. There will be no order as to costs.

Before: CHIDYAUSIKU CJ, In Chambers

The legal point raised in this application is who should grant or refuse leave to appeal in terms of s92F of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] in circumstances where the presiding President is unavailable. The relevant section provides:

"92F Appeals against decisions of Labour Court

(1) An appeal on a question of law only shall lie to the Supreme Court from any decision of the Labour Court.

(2) Any party wishing to appeal from any decision of the Labour Court on a question of law in terms of subsection (1) shall seek from the President who made the decision leave to appeal that decision.

(3) If the President refuses leave to appeal in terms of subsection (2), the party may seek leave from the judge of the Supreme Court to appeal."

This is an important point that should be determined by the Supreme Court as opposed to a Judge of the Supreme Court in Chambers.

Accordingly I direct that this matter be set down for hearing before a Court of three Judges.

I also direct that at the hearing of this matter the parties should be ready to argue the matter on the merits. In other words, the parties should first argue the application for leave as a preliminary point and then the merits of the appeal. This will enable the Court to consider the merits of the appeal should it conclude that it can grant the leave to appeal.

Accordingly, the parties in this case are hereby granted leave to augment their Heads of Argument in respect of the preliminary point and to file Heads of Argument on the merits of the appeal. This approach may expedite the finalisation of this matter.

In the result, the Registrar is directed to set this matter down. There will be no order as to costs.





Civil Division of the Attorney-General's Office, respondents' legal practitioners

Back Main menu

Categories

Back to top