Kadoma Textiles v Davies Mazambara & 8 Others

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/269/16
HELD AT HARARE ON 20th JANUARY, 2016
CASE NO.
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	     JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/269/16

HELD AT HARARE ON 20th JANUARY, 2016     CASE NO. LC/H/1117/14

AND 13TH MAY, 2016			 	     X REF: LC/H/APP/64/15

In the matter between:-

KADOMA TEXTILES							    Appellant

And

DAVIES MAZAMBARA & 8 OTHERS					    Respondent

Before the Honourable Mhuri, J.

For Appellant	:	Mr A.K. Maguchu (Legal Practitioner)

For Respondent	:	Mr K. Gama (Legal Practitioner)

MHURI J.

This appeal is mainly centred on the interpretation of the phase “effective date” as used by the Arbitrator. Appellant had raised four (4) grounds of appeal but has since abandoned some grounds leaving these two, that:

In deciding on the meaning of “effective date”, the Arbitrator erred at law in failing to consider the meaning of the phrase but rather proceeded to determine what he meant or intended to mean.

The Arbitrator erred at law in failing to find that “effective date” means the date when the increments awarded by him start to apply.  Consequently, the Arbitrator’s finding to the contrary, is incongruable and wrong at law.

The first award dated the 28th June, 2014 which gives rise to the second award reads in the relevant section as follows:

“1.	25% from January 2010

2.	15% from January 2011

3.	15% from January 2012

4.	15% from January 2013

5.	15% from January 2014.

Each increase being the basis for the subsequent negotiations.

The first adjustment which is from January 2010 - January, 2012 is effective 31st July, 2014.

The second adjustment which is from January2013 – January 2014 is effective 30th August, 2014.”

The second award which is the subject of this award reads in the relevant portions:

“1.	………………………………………………………

2.	Respondent has raised an issue of effective dates.  The effective dates cited in the arbitral award of the 28th June, 2014 refers to, that if respondent had decided to implement or honour the award, the arbitrator had lessened the burden on it by paying each of the claimants in July and August 2014.  By using the word “adjustment” the arbitrator meant “payment” and not the interpretation held by Respondent.

In terms of effective dates, an arbitration award becomes effective as soon as it is issued.

Going by this explanation there is no change in what the arbitrator ordered in the award of 28 June, 2014.

3.	………………………………………………………

4.	………………………………………………………

5.	The issue of effective dates raised earlier or by Respondent does not absolve Respondent from paying claimants as Respondent has not challenged the figures save for cash in lieu of leave and overtime.”

“Effective date” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as,

“the date on which a Statute, Contract, Insurance Policy or such other instrument takes effect.  This date sometimes differs from the date on which the instrument was enacted or signed.”

That, this is the correct definition of effective date is acceptable by both parties.

I agree with Respondent’s submission that the golden rule of interpretation of words is to give words their ordinary and grammatical meaning which is compatible with their context.  In quantifying the 1st award, the Arbitrator stated as follows in defining “effective date,”

“The grammatical meaning of “effective date” is (the date on which the award will be) operational or having force, i.e. the date when the award becomes operational, or comes into force.”

This interpretation falls under the definition as stated in Black’s Law Dictionary.  Therefore, I do not find any fault with the Arbitrator.  The Arbitrator’s computation that while the increments are effective from certain (prior) dates, their payments are effective from other (future) dates i.e. (July and August).

The Arbitrator was clear in his award when he was analysing the parties’ submissions, in particular the issue of effective dates as had been raised by Appellant.

He stated,

“If Respondent had decided to implement or honour the award of 28th June, 2014, the Arbitrator had lessened the burden on it by paying each claimant in July and August, 2014.

……………………………………………………..

In terms of effective dates, an arbitration becomes effective as soon as it is issued.

……………………………………………………..”

It is clear from the above that the award became effective from the date it was issued.  It is the payment which was deferred to July and August – these were the effective dates of payment.

I am not persuaded at all by the Appellant’s submission that July and August were the effective dates of the award itself.  To give and accept this interpretation creates an absurdity and defeats the whole basis of the first award that gave increments dating from 2010 up to 2014.

To that end therefore I find that the appeal is without merit and is to be dismissed with costs.

Accordingly the appeal is hereby dismissed with costs and the arbitral award is confirmed.

Dube, Manikai & Hwacha – Appellant’s legal practitioners

Gama & Partners – Respondent’s legal practitioners