DISTRIBUTED BY VERITAS TRUST Tel: [263] [4] 794478 Fax & Messages [263] [4] 793592 E-mail: veritas@mango.zw Veritas makes every effort to ensure the provision of reliable information, but cannot take legal responsibility for information supplied. Judgment No. 29/18 “It is, in my view, unlikely that an appeal court will interfere with the findings and Civil Appeal No. SC 524/14 conclusions reached in this matter, based on the clear and unambiguous contents of the retrenchment agreement.” An application for leave to appeal against this judgment was dismissed by the Labour Court but subsequently granted by this Court. THE APPEAL [5] The first ground of appeal alleged an error at law by the court a quo in finding that the delay was inordinate and the explanation therefor unreasonable. The second alleged a misdirection at law by that court in ruling that the appellant had no prospects of success on appeal in the main matter. [6] The appeal runs foul of two legal principles. The first is s 92F(1) of the Labour Act3 which provides that an appeal on a question of law only shall lie to the Supreme Court from any decision of the Labour Court. The second is that the indulgence of condonation is granted or denied at the discretion of the court of first instance and an appellate court will not, except in limited circumstances4, interfere with the exercise by the lower court of that discretion. [7] Regarding the first ground of appeal, merely using the words ‘erred in law’ does not create a point of law. It must clearly appear from the ground of appeal what point of law is sought to be determined. 5 In that connection it has been held that a serious misdirection on the facts would amount to a question of law.6 A finding that the delay in making an application is 3 Chapter 28:01 See Barros & Anor v Chimphonda 1999 (1) ZLR58 (S) 5 Small Enterprises Development Corporaton v David Chemhere SC23/02; 6 National Foods v Mugadza SC 105/1995; Hama v National Railways of Zimbabwe SC 96/1996 4 3