Amos Makono and 34 Others v Freda Rebecca Gold Mine Holdings Limited

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/215/24
HARARE, 8 MAY 2024 & 15 MAY 2024
CASE NO LC/H/198/24
In the matter between:-
AMOS MAKONO AND 34 OTHERS
APPLICANT
FREDA REBECCA GOLD MINE
RESPONDENT
---------


==============================

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE

HARARE, 8 MAY 2024 & 15 MAY 2024

In the matter between:-

AMOS MAKONO AND 34 OTHERS

FREDA REBECCA GOLD MINE
HOLDINGS LIMITED

APPLICANT

RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable Kudya J

For the Applicant A.K. Maguchu (Legal Practitioner)

For the Respondent T. Mpofu (Legal Practitioner)

KUDYA, J:

On 8 May 2024 this court dismissed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court at the instance of the applicant employees. The court indicated that if the parties wanted reasons for the dismissal of the application they were at liberty to request these from the court. These are the reasons:

Background to the matter is that the applicant employees and another group which shall be referred to as the Nyoni group got engaged sin a labour dispute with the respondent employer over issues to do with the signing of new employment contracts following the falling into disuse of the Zimbabwe Dollar (ZWL). When the Nyoni group went to the Supreme court the Supreme Court found that by not signing new contracts of employment the employees had put themselves out of employment to the extent that they could not seek to be awarded what they viewed as due to them from the employer.

The instant appellants did not have a similar pronouncement in their matter but the fact of the matter is that both sets of cases were around the fact that the employees had not signed new USD contracts when invited to do so by the employer. When the instant employees appeared before this court their argument was that this court should not follow the Nyoni decision as in their view it was decided without the benefit of facts which in their view if such had been placed before the Supreme court it would have decided matter the Nyoni matter differently. After filing of sub missions by both parties and after hearing oral argument by the applicants and the respondent this court concluded that it could not decide the applicant’s case differently since the Supreme Court had already ruled on the issue that failure to sign new USD contracts was tantamount to employees putting themselves out of jobs.

This court was persuaded by the employer’s argument that on the basis of state decs its court could not depart from the Supreme court decision which ruled definitively in the status of the employees. The employees are not happy about this court’s decision. They want to appeal to the Supreme court on fulfilment of the provision of Section 92(F) of the labour court Act. They have thus filed the instant application where they seek that this court grants them leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The test for leave to appeal is settled See Ngazimbi v Murowa Diamonds SC 27/2013. In the case at stake it is clear that despite the fragmented presentation of the intended appeal grounds the basic argument that the employees in the instant matter are advancing is that the Supreme may be persuaded to decide the issue of their employment status differently since it decided the Nyoni matter without the benefit of certain facts and propositions which the instant group thinks it can place before the Supreme Court to decide differently.

What is clear from the employees’ reasoning is that they accept that at law the labour is bound by Supreme Court decisions. They however hasten to mention that their view is that the Supreme court decision was birthed by inadequate motivation from the facts. Their interpretation of the facts. their matter is such that it should be accepted as a point of law with the effect of being capable of being placed before the court Supreme Court for determination.

It is this court’s view that such an argument flew in the face of the test of leave to appeal which is clearly that, what is under attack is the labour court’s decision and not the Supreme Court’s decision. To the extent that there is no meaningful attack on the labour court decision it is thus difficult to persuade the labour court to grant the leave application. It is granted that the Supreme Court can vacate its earlier decision on the same issue but such does not translate to asking the labour court to interrogate the Supreme Court decision with a view to founding a matter capable of resolution by the appeal court and a point of law.

It need be noted that in the appeal that was before the court, the labour court ruled that it was bound by the Nyoni case as that decision settled the employment status of the employees.


In the court’s view whether the Supreme court decision was birth by sufficient or insufficient information or pleadings that was neither here nor there vis the issue of the employment status. The employment status has been ruled on by a Supreme Authority so the labour court can do no more than just follow such. If the employees in the matter at hand are of the view that they are able to motivate their position with the result that their employment status can be adjudged differently from the Nyoni that becomes an issue clearly for the resolution by the Supreme Court.

It would only be of academic interest to decipher what the facts of the matter vis the employees remaining without contracts or the effect of the 2019 Statutory Instrument vis dollarization. All such arguments can not detract from the fact that there is an extant decision vis the employee status of all the employees who did not sign the new USD contracts. For as long as such subsists it would thus be difficult to impugn this court’s decision of aligning itself with the Nyoni decision. In the ultimate it is clear that no good case for leave to appeal was made. The application should accordingly fail for lack of merit.

IT IS ORDERED THAT

Applicant for leave to appeal be and is hereby dismissed with costs.

Maguchu and Muchada, Applicant’s Legal Practitioners

Gill, Godlonton & Gerrans, Respondent’s Legal Practitioners
--- END OCR FALLBACK ---