Blog

This matter was determined at a time when the Companies Act (Chapter 24.01) was still operational. In 2019, the legislature introduced the Companies and Other Business Entities Act (Chapter 24:31). A perusal of this law shows that the section on the removal of directors is almost identical to the one that was in the now-repealed Companies Act. Besides the new legislation, the remarks of the court, in this case, are still watertight. If an individual is under a contract of employment the Labour Act determines how the relationship with the employer is to end.

What is clear in these provisions is that based on gender, an employer is precluded from differentiating wages and salaries between male employees and female employees. We submit that, perhaps, if the applicant in Thokozile Zinonda v Cafca Limited SC 64 -17 had couched her case along the lines of gender discrimination, provided the facts of her case supported this, her prospects of success would have been better.

The biggest lesson one can learn from this case is that courts are bound by what parties would have agreed. The courts do not have a duty to rewrite contracts as their only role is to give meaning to their terms. This case confirms what the SC has held in a plethora of cases like Unilever Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd v Matsheza[1], Magodora & Others v CARE International Zimbabwe[2]  and Lawrence Shumbayaonda v Madhatter Mining (Private) Limited.[3] Contracts duly agreed upon by the parties will be upheld.

The Supreme Court, in this case, confirmed the doctrine found in Magodora & Others v CARE International Zimbabwe[1] wherein the court argued that it was not the duty of the courts to rewrite a contract. Employers and employees remain bound by what they would have agreed upon for as long as the said agreement did not result from fraud or duress or any other element that attacks the consensus between the parties.

“Quite clearly the respondents were transferred, with the undertaking, to another employer.  Their employment was not terminated.  In terms of the contract and also by operation of s 16 of the Act, the respondents were transferred to Rutimba on terms … Read the rest...

The case is amongst the countless judgements that posit that when an employee serves his or her personal interests at the expense of the employer’s interests, dismissal is warranted.

Repeatedly the Supreme Court has urged the lower courts to substantiate the quantum of damages with the evidence presented by the parties

If an employee commits an offence that goes to the root of the employment relationship, the employer has the discretion to dismiss the employee.