James North Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd v Washington Takaendesa

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/283/2020
HARARE, 17 NOVEMBER 2020
CASE NO. LC/H/283/2020
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE      JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/283/2020

HARARE, 17 NOVEMBER 2020		             	     CASE NO. LC/H/253/18

AND 27 NOVEMBER 2020

In the matter between:-

JAMES NORTH ZIMBABWE (PVT) LTD			Appellant

And

WASHINGTON TAKAENDESA					Respondent

Before Honourable B.S. Chidziva, Judge

For Appellant		Mr R.T. Mutero (Legal Practitioner)

For Respondent		Mr T. L. Shaka (Legal Practitioner)

CHIDZIVA, J:

This is an appeal against the determination of the National Employment Council for the Clothing and Industry dated17 February 2014. The determination is couched as follows:

“In light of the above, the Appeals Board considered it fair to uphold and award the proposals from the appellant as they were calculated from date of dismissal to date of NEC determination and nothing more. Thus the company is being ordered to pay, the appellant USD11 458-30 …”

The grounds of appeal that are before this court are as follows:

The National Employment Council erred at law by awarding damages without hearing evidence.

The National Employment Council misdirect at law by imposing an out of court settlement and plucking figures in favour of the Respondent without any legal basis.

In response the Respondent has submitted that:

The determination ordering that the Respondent be paid the sum of USD11 458-30 was made after the NEC took into consideration written presentation from both parties. Furthermore what is before the court purports to be an appeal yet what is being challenged is the procedure taken by the NEC.

This court under LC/H/18/15 dismissed a similar appeal by the appellant on the basis that its complaint amounted to are review and not an appeal

It is a trite principle of law that grounds of appeal deal with the substantive correctness of a decision. Review deals with the procedural correctness.

In the case of Muringi v Air Zimbabwe & Anor 1997 (2) ZLR it was held that review is concerned with the correctness of the decision making process and not the correctness of the decision.

In the first ground of appeal the appellant is alleging that there was an irregularity because the decision was made without hearing oral evidence. The appellant further alleges that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to create agreements between parties.

It is my view that the appellant is challenging the correctness of the decision making process. The Appellant should have filed a review application instead of filing an appeal.

In the circumstances I find that the appeal being meritless.

I order as follows:

The appeal be and is hereby dismissed.

Appellant shall bear costs.

Caleb Mucheche & Partners, appellant’s legal practitioners

Messrs Koto & Company, respondent’s legal practitioners