By Own Correspondent 

Trade unionist Samuel Hova has prevailed over Petrozim Line Private Limited after the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe has dismissed an appeal by against him, on a procedural technicality, citing the requirement for appellants in labour matters to furnish security for costs.

Justices Susan Mavangira, George Chiweshe, and Joseph Musakwa, threw out Ptrozim’s appeal from a Labour Court judgment that had set aside Hova’s dismissal, putting to an end a protracted labour battle. Hova, was suspended without pay and benefits in April 2022. The suspension followed allegations that he participated in the release of a press statement that undermined the image of Petrozim Line and its holding company, the National Oil Infrastructure of Zimbabwe (NOIC).

The Labour Court had ruled that Hova’s disciplinary hearing was unfairly conducted since he was not afforded a postponement to prepare his defence and summon witnesses. He was slapped with three charges, including bringing the company’s name into disrepute and breach of confidentiality.

During the disciplinary hearing, Hova’s representative requested a postponement to prepare the defence and contact witnesses. The disciplinary committee denied the request and proceeded with the hearing in Hova’s absence, and dismissed him.

Hova applied for a review of the proceedings at the Labour Court, which found that the disciplinary committee had infringed on his right to be heard, ordering a fresh hearing within 60 days, failing which he was to be reinstated with full benefits.

Petrozim then filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, arguing that the Labour Court had erred in interfering with the disciplinary committee’s discretionary decision to refuse a postponement.

However, during the appeal hearing, Hova, who was representing himself, raised two preliminary issues stating that the appeal was invalid because Petrozim had failed to pay his security for costs and that the appeal had been overtaken by events, as the company had already complied with the Labour Court’s order by conducting a new disciplinary hearing.

The Supreme Court focused on the preliminary point regarding security for costs. The court cited Rule 55(2) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018, which requires an appellant to provide security for the respondent’s costs of appeal.

Petrozim argued that this rule did not apply to appeals from the Labour Court, contradicting a recent Supreme Court ruling in the case of Matenhere v Cornway College SC 16/24. The court was urged to find the Matenhere decision wrong at law.

The Supreme Court, led by Justice Chiweshe, dismissed Petrozim’s argument on two grounds. The court, noted that Petrozim had already made a commitment in its notice of appeal to provide such security. Having made this offer, the company could not then turn around and argue that it was not obliged to do so. It further, stated that the challenge to the Matenhere decision was not properly before it. Such a challenge should have been raised from the outset and would have required a larger, five-member bench to determine the issue, which was not the case here.

The court concluded that the appellant had failed to furnish the required security for costs.

In accordance with Rule 55(6) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018, which states that an appeal is deemed abandoned and dismissed if security for costs is not furnished within one month, the Supreme Court ordered the matter to be removed from the roll.

“Rule 55 (6) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 provides that where an appellant who is required to furnish security for the respondent`s costs of appeal, fails to so furnish such security within one month of filing his or her appeal, the appeal shall be regarded as abandoned and shall be deemed to have been dismissed.

“The present appeal must be so regarded as having been abandoned and dismissed. For that reason, it must be removed from the roll. Costs shall follow the cause,” read part of the judgement.