Zimbabwe National Water Authority v Bongani Guswana

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/88/2016
HARARE, 9 FEBRUARY 2016 &
CASE NO LC/H/681/2014
19 FEBRUARY 2016
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	          JUDGMENT NO LC/H/88/2016

HARARE, 9 FEBRUARY 2016 &				         CASE NO LC/H/681/2014

19 FEBRUARY 2016

ZIMBABWE NATIONAL WATER AUTHORITY			APPELLANT

BONGANI GUSWANA							RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable G Musariri  :    Judge

For the Appellant	 J Dondo (Attorney)

For the Respondent     K Chisekereni  (Attorney)

MUSARIRI J:

At the commencement of oral argument the respondent made an oral application for condonation of the late filing of his Heads of Argument. The appellant did not oppose the application. In the interests of justice I proceeded to grant the application.

On 1 August 2014 arbitrator J Simango made an arbitration award. She ordered the appellant to pay the respondent a total sum of $1 549-77 in respect of acting allowance and bonus. The appellant then appealed to this court against the award. The respondent opposed the appeal. The grounds of appeal were four-fold. However I consider that the first ground disposes of the matter. It stated that:

“1.	The arbitrator grossly erred and misdirected herself on a point of law by proceeding to hear and determine a dispute which had been amicably resolved as between the parties in terms of a Deed of Settlement made and entered into by and between the parties which Deed had been complied with at the time that the arbitrator sat to determine the dispute.

In particular the arbitrator failed to take into account that the dispute relating to the acting allowance and bonus had been resolved by the parties and the respondent had been paid in full in respect of the two items.”

The respondent countered thus:

“1.	Ad Ground of Appeal 1

Disputed. The arbitrator did not err. It was clear in terms of the record and the facts of the matter that the dispute had not been resolved. And the arbitrator simply resolved the dispute.

The so called deed of settlement did not in any way take away the rights of the parties relative to the dispute.

No payment had been made to the respondent. The issue remained unresolved and the arbitrator did the right thing in making a decision which resolved the matter.”

The Deed of Settlement is filed of record. It is dated February 2014. It was signed on behalf of both the appellant and respondent. It declaimed as follows:

“1.	The respondent shall pay to the claimant an amount of US$5 256-24 being in full and final settlement of the claimant’s claims.

2.	The amount will be paid in full on or before 1 April 2014 through a Bank Account to be provided by the claimant.”

Also filed of record is a bank transfer of $5 256-24 by the appellant’s banker to Shoriwa Norest’s bank account. It was stated that it was the account nominated by the respondent. The respondent did not seriously dispute these facts. His case was that notwithstanding the Deed of Settlement there remained some amount owing to him.

The respondent was misguided to argue as he did. The Deed was conclusive given the circumstances of the matter. It referred to “an outstanding labour dispute between the parties.” It further stated that payment would be made “in full and final settlement of the claimant’s claims.” Payment having been made, that was the end of the matter. There were no further valid claims that could be brought by the respondent against the appellant in respect of their former employment relationship. Thus the arbitrator grossly erred in re-opening a matter which had been settled by the parties.

Wherefore it is ordered that:

The appeal be and is hereby allowed;

The arbitration award issued by arbitrator J Simango dated 1 August 2014 is set aside; and

Each party shall bear its own costs.

G Musariri

J-U-D-G-E