Labour court dismisses 37 applicants’ bid to salvage late appeal against arbitration award

The Labour Court of Zimbabwe has dismissed an application for condonation filed by 37 workers seeking to appeal out of time against an arbitral award involving Shengxiang Investments (Pvt) Ltd, ruling that the delay was inadequately explained and that the prospects of success were weak.


Delivering judgment in Harare under case LC/H/48/26, Labour Court Judge Justice Clever Garikai Tsikwa held that although the 25‑day delay was not excessive, the applicants failed to provide a full and candid explanation covering the entire period of non‑compliance.

“The applicants were found wanting in this regard. They took a lackadaisical approach to the whole issue,” the court said.

The group, led by Tonia Jara and Givemore Funguro, had sought condonation for late noting of appeal and an extension of time after an arbitrator ruled in October 2025 that they were unlawfully dismissed but only partially upheld their claims for terminal benefits.

The workers argued that they had been scattered across the country after losing employment, faced financial hardship and experienced delays in securing legal representation. They also claimed the arbitrator exceeded his mandate by quantifying damages and improperly excluding some employees from the award.

However, the respondent challenged both the explanation for delay and the merits of the intended appeal, arguing that the applicants failed to act with urgency and gave contradictory accounts of their circumstances.

Justice Tsikwa agreed, finding the explanation “vague and unsubstantiated” and noting that it did not properly account for the period between receipt of the award and the filing of the condonation application.

“The law requires that both periods be explained. The applicants were found wanting. They failed to note an appeal within 21 days and again took another month to file the present application,” the judge said.

On prospects of success, the court held that the arbitrator acted within his mandate in quantifying the award and relying on documentary evidence before him.

“The quantification of damages cannot reasonably be characterised as an excess of jurisdiction but rather a proper exercise of the mandate conferred upon the arbitrator,” Justice Tsikwa ruled.

The court further dismissed arguments that the arbitrator erred in excluding certain applicants or misapplying contract durations, describing the claims as inconsistent and speculative.

“The inconsistency undermines the reliability of the applicants’ argument,” the judge said.

Justice Tsikwa also noted that any minor errors in the arbitral award could be corrected under mechanisms provided for in the Arbitration Act rather than through an appeal.

Turning to prejudice, the court said granting condonation would undermine finality in litigation and burden the respondent with unnecessary legal costs.

“The respondent will obviously be prejudiced through endless litigation and incurring costs,” the judgment read.

In conclusion, the court held that the applicants had failed to establish good cause for condonation.

“Granting condonation in circumstances where the explanation is deficient and the prospects of success are limited would undermine the principle that rules of court are to be observed,” Justice Tsikwa said.

The application was dismissed, with each party ordered to bear its own costs.