Sithole v City of Harare 2002 (1) ZLR 356 (H)

Mr T Biti for the respondent – practice and procedure. The applicant had been dismissed by the respondent on disciplinary charges, some 19 months later, she brought an application for review in seeking condonation, she argued that the delay was caused by attempts to seek redress through domestic remedies. On the merits is was argued that the procedures provided by the relevant legislation had not been observed and that the decision to dismiss was grossly unreasonable.

Held, that the principle that guide a could in an application for condonation are well settled. They include the degree of non compliance with the rules, the explanation therefore; the prospects of success on the merits the importance of the case; the convenience of the court and the avoidance of unnecessary delay in the administration of justice. These factors are not individually decisive: They are interrelated and must be weighed one against the other.

held further that although the explanation for the delay was reasonable this was not decisive. The prospects of success were poor. the legal point she had raised was untenable, having been settled by the supreme court. the decision to dismiss could no be described as unreasonable let alone grossly unreasonable. There had been a proper exercise by the relevant authorities of their discretion when they decided to dismiss the applicant. The cumulative effect of these finding was that the applicant had failed to establish a case for condonation.