Sakarombe Tafadzwa v Alpha Media Holdings (Pvt) Ltd

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/700/2016
HARARE, 16 SEPTEMBER 2016 &
CASE NO LC/H/LRA/76/2016
4 NOVEMBER 2016
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	         JUDGMENT NO LC/H/700/2016

HARARE, 16 SEPTEMBER 2016 &			  CASE NO LC/H/LRA/76/2016

4 NOVEMBER 2016

In the matter between

SAKAROMBE TAFADZWA					             APPLICANT

Versus

ALPHA MEDIA HOLDINGS (PVT) LTD				RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable Muzofa J

The Applicant in Person

For the Respondent	Ms P Macheka (Law Officer)

MUZOFA J:

This is the return day of an application for confirmation of a ruling made by the applicant, a labour officer.

The applicant submitted that she heard a matter between one Henry Diya and Alpha Media Holdings “the respondent”.

Henry Diya’s claim included a claim for outstanding fuel allowance during notice period in the sum of US$399-00 and outstanding airtime allowance US$550-00. The claimant also claimed US$5 940-00 being money for the withdrawal of the motor vehicle issued to him before the expiry of the notice period.

According to the applicant the respondent did not deny the claim. A certificate of settlement was issued. It was agreed between the parties that the total of US$6 889-00 was payable over two months in equal instalments.

The respondent failed to pay. The claimant Henry Diya pursued the matter again. A certificate of no settlement was issued after the respondent appeared again before the applicant, this time pleading that it had financial challenges therefore unable to meet its obligation.

Consequently the applicant, on considering the issues found no defence available to the respondent. She made a ruling that the respondent pay the full amount of $6 898-00 within 30 days of the order.

On the return day, both the applicant and the respondent appeared.

The respondent opposed the application for confirmation of the ruling. It was submitted that the two claims for airtime and fuel allowances was conceded.

The respondent opposed the confirmation in respect of the withdrawal of the motor vehicle.

This time the respondent did not raise the financial incapacity.

It is my view that it is an anomaly for a party to confirmation proceedings, to raise new issues not raised before the applicant.

This is so because this court’s role is to confirm the ruling based on the facts before the applicant.

In casu the basis of opposition was two-fold. Firstly that the certificate of settlement was entered into contrary to the respondent’s policy.

There is no merit in this submission since the applicant’s ruling did not stem from the certificate of settlement, its basis was the certificate of no settlement.

The second basis was that the computation of the amount for the withdrawal of the motor vehicle was incorrect.

It was submitted that, the respondent’s policy provides for a transport allowance where a graded employee is not issued with a company vehicle.

In this case, the “claimant” Henry Diya was issued with a company vehicle. He was served with a notice of termination of contract and the company vehicle was withdrawn. Henry Diya was therefore entitled to a $400-00 allowance. The respondent was not sure which grade Henry Diya was in. Two contracts of employment were produced to confirm how much was paid as transport allowance. Henry Diya’s contract was not produced.

It was not in dispute that the policy document which the respondent sought to rely on was signed after Henry Diya left employment.

The applicant could not respond to the issues as they were raised for the first time before the court.

This is the difficulty that arises where an adjudicator becomes a litigant. Clearly the applicant was not privy to the operations of the respondent. Henry Diya the interested party has been pushed out of the picture by the legislation.

That as it maybe, as I stated before it is not for the court to decide on the application afresh.

The court’s role is to confirm the ruling with or without amendments based on the facts placed before the applicant.

I find no fault in the applicant’s ruling. The computation of the reimbursement for the withdrawal of the motor vehicle was based on the Central Mechanical Engineering department (CMED) rates.

According to the applicant parties actually agreed on the rates and further negotiated it to $90-00 a day for 22 days a month in the duration of the three months he served notice. The total was $5 940-00.

The applicant also applied for costs to be granted in the sum of $37-00. This was not opposed.

Accordingly the ruling is confirmed in the following terms:

The application be and is hereby granted.

The respondent be and is hereby ordered to pay Henry Diya the sum of $6 898-00 within thirty days of this order.

Costs in the sum of $37-00 are granted.