V. Sagori v Unifreight Ltd

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/133/2016
HARARE, 14 JULY 2015
CASE NO.
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE      JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/133/2016

HARARE, 14 JULY 2015				CASE NO. LC/H/APP/67/14

AND 4 MARCH 2016

In the matter between:-

V. SAGORI						Applicant

And

UNIFREIGHT LTD					Respondent

Before Honourable L. Kudya, Judge

For Applicant		L. Chimutashu (Trade Unionist)

For Respondent	T. Mashiri (Legal Assistant)

KUDYA, J:

This is an application for quantification of damages due to the applicant employee from the respondent employer.

The rest of the issues in this matter are common cause if regard is had to the oral submissions made by the parties on the hearing date.  In summary form parties are agreed on the rest of the quantification figures and the law giving rise to these.  The only divergence is where applicant claim 18 months damages and the respondent offers 5 months instead.  It is only this aspect which is addressed by this judgment.

Applicant claims 18 months damages citing the fact that the job market is strained hence it has been over 3 years since she lost her job and she has not managed to secure any job despite her skill and experience.  She led evidence to the effect that she applied to organizations like ZESA but they did not dignify her applications with a response.  She to that extent took it that there was no job for her.  She ultimately took up vending from which she realises about $60 month.  She however stated that the amount is not enough since she has school going children who pay $75 per term and also use public transport to go to school at a costs as well.  She stated further that she gets some financial help from her husband but that is minimal since the said husband has another wife besides her. In the result she persisted that 18 months was just and fair compensation for the premature loss of her job.

On the other hand the employer persisted in its offer of 5 months damages.  It relied on the case of Fokasini v Lobels SC 20-04 where the need for an employee to adduce evidence that he/she indeed failed to get a job was ruled to be important in deciding on what quantum of damages to award him/her.  The legal principles in Fokasini (Supra) are not debatable.  The issue that is of critical note is whether it can be said that applicant demonstrated from her evidence that she is indeed entitled to 18 months damages as opposed to the 5 months offer.

As stated earlier the applicant failed to produce evidence of the regrets where she had applied for jobs.  It is however important to note that it is no longer a secret that the Zimbabwe economy is shrinking economy with company closure being the order of the day.  It is thus not inconceivable that the applicant has clocked over 3 years to date without a job despite the fact that she has qualifications and is experienced in the job she lost at respondent’s.

A reading of the oral submissions by applicant also seems to speak to her wanting the respondent to be penalised for having cut short her career by the job loss.  Unfortunately that argument is without legal foundation.  All that the court is faced with here is the reality of a shrinking economy where applicant’s failure to get a job for over 3 years is thus understood and on the other hand where the respondent is of the view that 5 months damages would do justice to her claim.

As stated earlier the period that applicant has spent without a job is clearly consistent with the practical set up of company closures etc.  To that extent her claim of 18 months cannot by any chance be styled outrageous.  A reading of what applicant used to earn as viewed against what she now realises from vending shows that indeed her life style has been changed by the loss of the job.

It is also apparent that there is no other better formula for an award of damages then that the one claiming has to demonstrate what it would have taken her to get another job and if she did not make that effort that can be taken against her.  In instant case applicant claims she persisted in her search till January 2015 and surely if any job was going to come it would have come by that time.

It is therefore the court’s view that the offer of 5 months is abnormal taking into account the realities of the job market.  To that extent a realistic offer would have been 10 months considering the period that applicant has been hunting for a job and the fact that 3 years down the line she still has not succeeded in her endeavours.

In the result the quantification claim succeeds to the extent that the court rules that 10 months’ salary as damages would be just.

IT IA ORDERED THAT

Application for quantification damages being with merit it be and is hereby allowed to the extent that respondent pays applicant 10 months’ salary as damages in lieu of reinstatement and for the rest of the claims the respondent pays all the figures it admitted to as being due to the applicant.

Each party bears own costs.