retention allowancefixed term contractsprescriptioncondition precedentlabour officer
Tags
retention allowancefixed term contractprescriptionlabour officer
legislation
Statutes Cited
Labour Act
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether the claim for retention allowance had prescribed","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Offer made December 2013, project continued beyond June 2014, claim made after 2017"}
{"issue_text":"What was the relevant project end date for purposes of the retention allowance","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Original schedule June 2014, project continued, 2nd respondent claims December 2017"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The 2nd respondent was employed by the 1st respondent under fixed term contracts as finance director. In December 2013, she was offered a retention allowance conditional upon working until the completion of the Zimbabwe Works Project, which was then scheduled to end in June 2014. The project received additional funding and continued beyond June 2014, with new contracts signed that made no reference to retention allowance. The 2nd respondent claimed the retention allowance in 2017, arguing the project ended in December 2017.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases