PG INDUSTRIES (ZIMBABWE) LTD v BVEKERWA & ORS 2016 (2) ZLR 836 (S)

Flynote

Appeal: " grounds for " absence of reasons given by court a quo " court a quo making order which had not been sought " irregularities constituting grounds for interference

Court: " Supreme Court " review powers " irregularities committed by court a quo " Supreme Court entitled to set aside proceedings, even if proceedings are not subject of the appeal

Headnote

The respondents were formerly employees of a now defunct company. The appellant company was the holding company of that defunct company. The respondents had lost their employment with that company following unlawful industrial action. Domestic remedies having failed, the respondents noted an appeal with the Labour Court. The notice of appeal cited the appellant as the respondent, but the grounds of appeal cited the other company as respondent. In its response, the appellant put the respondents on notice to identify the correct respondent. The Labour Court held that the respondents had made an error in citing the two entities in the manner they did, but held that the error could be corrected. It ordered the respondents to make an appropriate application for amendment of the notice of appeal and grounds thereof. This the respondents did, citing the appellant as the respondent. The application was granted in chambers. No reason was given for granting the application.

The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, on the grounds that the ruling of the court a quo made the appellant a party to the employment dispute although it had never been the respondents' employer. It also contended that the absence of reasons was an irregularity such as to justify interference by the Supreme Court.

Held, that when a matter is opposed and the issues have been argued it is unacceptable for a court to make an order without giving any reasons for it, since the litigants are entitled to be informed of the reasons for the decision. A failure to give reasons is an irregularity which has the effect of vitiating the proceedings. Due to the irregularity, the appeal could not be decided on its merits. The absence of reasons made the task of the appeal court even more difficult, as the reasons for the decision remained locked in the mind of the judicial officer.

Held, further, that in terms of s 25(2) of the Supreme Court Act [Chapter B 7:13], the Supreme Court is imbued with powers to set aside proceedings that are irregular, even if those proceedings are not the subject of an appeal or application before it.

Held, further, that when the appellant raised the issue of the correct identity of the employer, the Labour Court was obliged to make a judicial decision on the point. It failed to do so. This was an irregularity that could serve to vitiate the proceedings.

Held, further, that the court a quo went further: it fashioned a remedy on behalf of one of the parties and ordered that party to take a procedural step which had neither been sought nor prayed for. Nor had the court been addressed by any of the parties on the order it ultimately issued. The effect of its order was to lift the corporate veil and turn the appellant into the employer of the respondents. This was another irregularity. Both irregularities warranted interference.