Talent Mugandani v The Salvation Army, Zimbabwe

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF
ZIMBABWE HARARE
Judgment No.LC/H/420/25
Case No. LC/H /838/25
In the matter between:
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE HARARE

Judgment No.LC/H/420/25 Case No. LC/H /838/25

In the matter between:

TALENT MUGANDANI	APPLICANT

And

THE SALVATION ARMY, ZIMBABWE	RESPONDENT BOTSWANA TERRITORY

22 October 2025; CAV

Date of judgment: 28 October 2025 Before the Honourable Makwande J

Mr W. Kupara, for applicant

Mr L. Mazima, for respondent

MAKWANDE J:

This is an application for review in terms of section 92EE of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01].

BACKGROUND

The applicant is employed by the respondent as an Accounts Clerk. He has been so employed since 2008. In May 2021, the parties agreed to reduce the working days for the applicant from a full month to 11 days. Again, in January 2025, the respondent sought to reduce the working days further from 11 days to 4 days per month citing financial constraints. The applicant initially tendered a document accepting the reduced days but later on reneged on the grounds that the acceptance

was obtained through pressure. The applicant further asserted that the addendum to the contract introduced by the respondent completely changed her working conditions.

An impasse regarding this issue arose leading to the parties subjecting themselves to Arbitration. At the completion of the hearing, the arbitrator issued an arbitration award on 4 August 2025. The contents of the award are not material to this case.

On 5 August 2025, the Arbitrator wrote a letter to the respondent in response to a request for correction of the arbitration award. The letter read as follows:

“The above matter is noted in your letter dated 5 August 2025, and indeed the errors noted on representation of the employer party and referring authority are admitted as typographical and clerical errors on the second page (2) of the arbitration award that was issued on 4 August 2025.

Corrections:

On the attendance list, the name ‘George Makings employer representative’ is hereby removed and replaced by the correct representative of the respondent- ‘T. Madzimure employer representative’

The referring authority on paragraph 1, ‘Designated Agent [Mrs Simangeli Nehowa] is hereby removed and replaced with the correct referring authority, ‘Designated Agent [Ms Cleopatra Mhariwa].

The corrections cited above are indicated in the attached copy of the second page of the arbitral award in terms of Article 33 (1) (a) & (2) of Arbitration Act [7:15].

The second page of the arbitral award served to the parties on 5 August 2025 is hereby cancelled and substituted with the corrected copy attached to this letter.

The claimant party is also notified of this correction by copy of this letter.”

The letter was signed off by the Arbitrator who gave the award. Attached to the award was the correction to the second page. On 8 August 2025, the arbitrator issued

a corrected stamped award with the changes as cited above, no changes were made to the operative part of the arbitral award.

Irked by the amendment by the arbitrator, the applicant filed a review to this court on the grounds that:

The Arbitrator fell into an error of law by issuing two arbitration awards outside his jurisdiction and in doing so he departed from his duty. He had no power to re-entertain the matter again as he was now functus officio and this amounts to gross procedural irregularity.

The Arbitrator fell into an error of law in making a finding that unsigned addendum to contract is valid and binding to all the parties yet none of the parties affixed a signature on it. He applied the wrong principle.

The Arbitrator erred when he corrected the errors well after he had already issued two other arbitration awards this is improper and unacceptable as it amounts to gross procedural irregularity.

ANALYSIS

At the hearing, the applicant withdrew ground 2 of his review admitting that the point is subject to appeal and not review. This disposes of the ground of review.

Article 33 of the Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15] provides for the correction and amendment of an award. A clerical error or typographical error(s) can be corrected either upon application of a party on notice or mero motu by the arbitration tribunal. This shall be done within thirty days of the award unless another period of time has been agreed upon by the parties.

In casu, the application for amendment was done a day after the award was issued. The amendment related to errors on the names of the party representing the employer representative and the referring labour officer. This correction fits well with the amendments envisaged under Article 33 of the Arbitration Act. The correction was initially made on the letter authored by the arbitrator on the 5th of August 2025 which was later incorporated in the composite corrected award issued on the 8th of August 2025.

The submission by the applicant that the arbitrator was functus officio in correcting the award is misplaced. The arbitrator was well within his rights endowed to him under Article 33 to correct the errors. The provision even gives an arbitrator power to give an interpretation of a specific point or part of the award.

I must also mention that the applicant in his third ground of appeal failed to state the correct facts. The arbitrator did not issue two other awards in addition to the first award issued on the 4th of August 2025. The correct position is as outlined above that on the 4th of August 2025 the arbitration award was issued, through a letter dated 5 August 2024 the arbitrator acknowledged the mistake he had made which cited wrong parties and corrected the second page of the award. On the 8th of August 2025, the arbitrator produced the composite corrected award which had a stamp dated 8 August 2025. The changes between the first award of the 4th of August and the one of the 8th of August were the names of the employer representative and the referring labour officer. The operative part remained intact.

In view of the above, this court finds no merit in the application for review.

In considering costs, the court took into account that the applicant is represented by a union, her salary in view of the reduction of the number of working days may be meagre to pay costs.

DISPOSITION

It is therefore ordered as follows:

The application for review is dismissed.

Each party shall pay its own costs.

Zimbabwe Educational Health, Scientific, Social and Cultural Workers Union, the applicant’s representatives.

Coghlan, Welsh and Guest Legal Practitioners, the respondent’s legal practitioners.