Unilever Zimbabwe (Private) Limited v Simbarashe Matsheza (SC16/17)

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.

This content is for Free Membership members only.
Login Join Now

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.

This content is for Free Membership members only.
Login Join Now
error: Content is protected !!