{"issue_text":"Whether appellants have legal right to substantive appointment to Grade 10 after maximum acting period","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Appellants acted beyond 9-month maximum period"}
{"issue_text":"Whether arbitrator erred in distinguishing Chinatsa case","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Both cases involve City of Harare employees seeking promotion"}
{"issue_text":"Whether appellants had legitimate expectation of promotion","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Alleged Council resolution of 25 February 2010"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
Appellants employed as Patrol women Grade 11 by City of Harare claimed acting allowances and substantive appointment to Grade 10 sergeant positions they had held from March 2012 to December 2013. Arbitrator granted acting allowances but refused substantive appointment.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases