The Labour Court has dismissed an application by PetroZim Line (Private) Limited seeking condonation for the late filing of its application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in a long-running dispute with former employee Samuel Hova.

In a judgment delivered by Justice Lawrence Murasi, the court ruled that the company had failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay and had no prospects of success on appeal. PetroZim was ordered to pay costs on a legal practitioner and client scale.

The dispute arose from disciplinary proceedings in which Hova was found guilty of misconduct and recommended for dismissal. Hova successfully challenged the process on review, with the Labour Court setting aside the disciplinary proceedings and ordering a fresh hearing within 60 days.

After PetroZim failed to comply, the matter returned to court. Justice Chivizhe subsequently ordered the company to conduct a new hearing within 30 days, failing which it was to reinstate Hova or pay damages in lieu of reinstatement. The company did not comply with that order, prompting a further review application in which the court again directed compliance.

PetroZim later sought to approach the Supreme Court but failed to file its application for leave to appeal within the prescribed time. It submitted what it termed a “hybrid application,” combining condonation for late filing with leave to appeal.

Justice Murasi questioned the procedural basis of such a “hybrid” application, noting that neither the Labour Act nor the Labour Court Rules provide for it. Although the court proceeded to consider the condonation application on its merits, it found the explanation for the delay inadequate.

The company argued that it had initially filed a timeous application for leave to appeal, which was struck off the roll as defective, and that the current application was filed about 15 days later. It maintained that the delay was not excessive.

However, the court found that PetroZim had not fully accounted for the delay and had failed to file a supporting affidavit from its legal practitioners explaining the defective filing. Justice Murasi held that merely listing events without a comprehensive explanation did not meet the threshold required for condonation.

On the prospects of success, the court rejected all three proposed grounds of appeal.

PetroZim argued that Hova had waived his right to challenge procedural irregularities in the disciplinary hearing because members of the disciplinary committee he had nominated accepted an extension of the notice period. The court dismissed this argument, stating that members of a disciplinary committee do not represent the individual interests of the accused employee but form part of the statutory structure of the committee.

The company also contended that the Labour Court had erred in ordering compliance with Justice Chivizhe’s earlier ruling, particularly the provision for reinstatement or payment of damages. Justice Murasi ruled that the order remained valid and binding, as it had neither been appealed against nor set aside, and therefore could not be ignored or treated as merely persuasive.

“In letting such a matter proceed to the Supreme Court would be tantamount to asking the Supreme Court to revisit the entire dispute and exercise a fresh discretion,” the judge said, finding no realistic prospects of success.

During preliminary proceedings, Hova, who represented himself, raised concerns that PetroZim had not paid a taxed Supreme Court bill of costs amounting to US$1,784.08 from earlier litigation. While the court declined to stay the matter on that basis, counsel for PetroZim undertook to attend to the payment.

In dismissing the application, Justice Murasi criticised what he described as weak and unarguable grounds, stressing that legal practitioners must exercise their right of access to the courts responsibly and avoid abusing court processes.

The court ultimately ordered that the application for condonation and extension of time be dismissed, with PetroZim directed to pay Hova’s costs on a punitive scale.