P. Jenje v Blue Track Investments

### Preamble
JUDGEMENT NO. LC/H/738/14
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
HELD IN HARARE, 7 NOVEMBER, 2013
CASE NO. LC/414/13
31ST JANUARY, 2014
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE 	  JUDGEMENT NO. LC/H/738/13

HELD IN HARARE, 7 NOVEMBER, 2013 &		           CASE NO. LC/414/13

31ST JANUARY, 2014

In the Matter Between

P. JENJE 					Appellant

And

BLUE TRACK INVESTMENTS		Respondent

Before The Honourable E. Makamure, J.

For Appellants:	Mr J. Mawopa(Trade Unionist)

For Respondent:  	Mr O. Matizanadzo(Legal Practitioner)

MAKAMURE E.,

This is an appeal against the decision of an arbitrator sitting at Harare. The Learned Arbitrator after assessing the facts placed before him dismissed the appellant’s claim for lack of merit. The sole ground on which this appeal is based is that:

“The honourable Arbitrator erred in differentiating similar cases and disregards the precedence (sic) set by the Labour Court which is superior than the Arbitrator”

In this case the appellant asserted that the Arbitrator failed to follow precedent. The Arbitrator on the other hand considered the specific facts of this matter. Thereafter they made a determination in terms of the factual findings of the case. The mere fact that an arbitrator has not followed precedent cannot be the basis for an appeal. Each case is always determined on its merits. It does not necessarily mean that cases which appear similar will have the same result.

It was submitted in limine on behalf of the respondent that the Arbitrator’s factual findings are not unreasonable. On this basis alone, Mr Matizanadzo who appeared on behalf of the Respondent submitted, the appeal should be dismissed. On the merits Mr Matizanadzo submitted that the Arbitrator’s findings are not unreasonable and therefore not appealable. Reference was made to T.M. Supermarket v Mangwiro 2004 (1) ZLR 186 at 158 and also Hama v National Railways of Zimbabwe 1996 (1) ZLR 664 (S) (Hama).

In the Hama case (above) it was held that in order for a decision to be interfered with:

“the decision must have been irrational in the sense of being so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who applied his mind to the question could have arrived at such a conclusion.”

In the present case I find that the Arbitrator correctly distinguished the present case from the Lifestyle Zimbabwe Furnishers vs. Andrew Mawapo& 295 Others LC/H/370/2010 and the RachaelKadzinga& 20 Others v Eastern Textiles (Pvt) Ltd, LC/ORD/MC/14/06 cases.

Having considered the papers and argument presented on behalf of the parties, I am not able to say that the Learned Arbitrator’s conclusion was unreasonable. I am therefore unable to interfere with it.

In the result there is merit in the point in limine raised. Further, on the merits, the appeal cannot be sustained.

In view of the above the appeal fails.

Accordingly, it is ordered that the appeal be and is hereby dismissed with costs.

Commercial Workers Union of Zimbabwe – for the appellant

Matizanadzo&Warhurst legal practitioners – for the respondent