{"issue_text":"Whether the Constitution prohibits retrospective civil legislation","issue_type":"constitutional","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Transitional provision made Labour Amendment retrospective to 17 July 2015"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the transitional provision violates the right to equality and non-discrimination","issue_type":"constitutional","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Different treatment of employers and employees under retrospective provision"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the transitional provision violates the right to fair labour practices","issue_type":"constitutional","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Retrospective imposition of financial obligation on employers"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the transitional provision constitutes compulsory deprivation of property","issue_type":"constitutional","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Financial obligation imposed retrospectively on employers"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
Employers challenged the constitutionality of section 18 of the Labour Amendment Act (No. 5) 2015 which retrospectively imposed an obligation to pay minimum retrenchment packages to employees whose contracts were terminated on notice on or after 17 July 2015, following the Supreme Court's Zuva Petroleum judgment.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases