Court name
Supreme Court of Zimbabwe
Case number
SC 28 of 2006
Chamber Application 388 of 2005

Denhere v Cimas (Chamber Application No. 388/05) (SC 28 of 2006, Chamber Application 388 of 2005) [2006] ZWSC 28 (11 September 2006);

Law report citations
Media neutral citation
[2006] ZWSC 28

Judgment No. SC.28/06

Chamber Application No. 388/05



FEBRUARY 8 & JULY 11, 2006

in person

for the respondent

MALABA JA, in Chambers in terms of r 31(7) of the Supreme Court

applicant argued on the basis that he wanted to appeal against the
orders of the labour court granted on 23 May 2003 and 13
July 2004.
He did not appeal against the first order until it was executed by
the employer in the exercise of the option not to
re- instate him but
pay damages in lieu of reinstatement. In terms of the first order
the labour court quantified the damages to
be paid to the applicant
on 6 July 2004.

The applicant seems to think
that he was unfairly treated by the labour court when it gave the
employer the options to pay him damages
in lieu of his reinstatement.
That complaint has nothing to do with the merits of the order and is
not a ground of appeal even if
he would have appealed against it
timeously. The reason is that there is a law giving the labour court
the power to grant an employer
the option to pay an employee damages
in lieu of reinstatement.

The applicant sought to suggest
that the law in question is a bad law. But that cannot be a ground
of appeal against an order made
in term of the law the validity of
which has not been successfully challenged in a court of law.

Similarly the order granted on
13 July 2004 was given in default of appearance by the applicant. He
did not apply for rescission
of the order. As such it is not an
appealable order. In any case the applicant accepted the payment of
his damages in lieu of reinstatement
and used part of the money
thereby waiving the right to challenge the correctness of the order
in terms of which the payment was

The application for condonation
of the late noting of appeal and for extension of time within which
to note an appeal is dismissed
with costs.