Grace Mahachi v Smallholder Micro-Irrigation Development Support Programme (c/o Ministry of Finance)

HH 17-2011
                                                                                     HC 5508/10


GRACE MAHACHI
versus
SMALLHOLDER MICRO-IRRIGATION
DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT PROGRAMME
(C/O MINISTRY OF FINANCE)


HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
MUTEMA J
HARARE, 4 November 2010


A Muchadehama, for the applicant
J Mumbengegwi, for the Ministry of Finance
A Dururu, for the Small Holder Micro-Irrigation Development Support Programme


       MUTEMA J: On 8 September, 2010 I erroneously granted an order, following a
chamber application, registering an arbitral award in favour of the applicant against the
Ministry of Finance as if the correct respondent was Smallholder Micro-Irrigation
Development Support Programme (“the Programme”). The Programme is donor-funded by the
European Development Fund.
       Subsequent to the registration of the arbitral award, it was brought to my attention via
my sister judge – Gowora J – who had dealt with an urgent chamber application by the
Programme to stay the sale in execution of the Programme’s motor vehicles which had been
attached pursuant to the enforcement of the arbitral award, that the award had been registered
against a wrong respondent. A closer scrutiny of the papers confirmed the error.
       In order to rectify the error and the consequent injustice, I drew the parties’ attention to
the anomally. They filed their respective submissions on the issue and on 4 November, 2010 I
issued the following order:
       “The order made on 8 September, 2010 registering an arbitral award in favour of the
       applicant against the Small Holder Micro-Irrigation Development Support Programme
       as the respondent was issued in error. The proper respondent should have been the
       Ministry of Finance. That order is accordingly rescinded”.

       The applicant has now noted an appeal against the above quoted order to the Supreme
Court. The reasons for my order have been requested. These are they:
       Order 49r 449(1)(a) allows a judge, either mero moto or on application by any party
affected, to correct, rescind or vary any judgment or order erroneously granted in the absence
of any party affected thereby while subr (1)(b) allows the same to be done if the order was
2
HH 17-2011
HC 5508/10

granted as a result of a mistake common to the parties. Either of the subrules applied in the
present matter, hence I invoked that Rule.
       What can be gleaned from the papers is that the contract of employment was entered
into on 3 November, 2008 between the applicant as employee and the National Authorising
Officer for the Programme, viz the Ministry of Finance as the employer. It is common cause
that the Programme is a separate legal person from the Ministry of Finance.
       The letter of applicant’s suspension from work dated 20 October, 2009 emanated from
the Ministry of Finance. It was authored by a deputy National Authorising Officer of that
Ministry. So was the letter containing the misconduct charge dated 30 October, 2009.
       Following an abortive disciplinary hearing at the Ministry of Finance, the applicant
took her case to the Ministry of Labour – against, not the Programme but the Ministry of
Finance. A labour officer referred the matter to arbitration after conciliation failed. It is
common cause that before the arbitrator, the parties were the applicant as claimant and the
Ministry of Finance as respondent. The award reads:
       “That respondent pay to the applicant salary arrears and benefits amounting to E51
       933,90 within 7 days from date of the interim determination”.

       It goes without quarrel, in view of the foregoing, that the Programme had nothing to do
with applicant’s misconduct charge, it therefore was not her employer hence it did not feature
before the labour officer or the arbitrator. It was never represented before the two tribunals.
The award was clearly not against it, it being a separate legal entity. When the applicant
resumed duty following her reinstatement pursuant to the arbitral award, the Programme
Manager, Nhlema, on 26 May, 2010 wrote to the Ministry of Finance asking for instructions
on how to proceed. He also on the same date wrote to the applicant saying inter alia “I now
await formal instructions from the employer on how to proceed”. This buttresses the view that
the Ministry of Finance was applicant’s employer. Even the letter written by the applicant’s
legal practitioners on 11 November, 2009 complaining about the applicant’s suspension from
duty and disciplinary enquiry was addressed not to the Programme but to the Ministry of
Finance.
       Also common cause is the fact that the Programme was cited for the very first time
only in the application for the registration of the arbitral award in this Court. This escaped my
eye for had I detected it I would not have granted the application for the registration of the
award. What applicant did in this respect connotes an element of misleading the court if it was
                                                                                             3
                                                                                    HH 17-2011
                                                                                    HC 5508/10

done to circumvent the difficulty of executing against the Ministry of Finance’s assets or
property. It is a wonder that the applicant seemed not to be in the know as regards who her
employer was.
       Order 39 r328 clearly states that any process which names a wrong person as a party is
invalid. In casu a wrong respondent was named in the process of registering the arbitral award
as well as in the writ of execution. Such a process is accordingly invalid.
       The foregoing are the reasons for the order/judgment that I gave.




Mbidzo, Muchadehama & Makoni, applicant’s legal practitioners.
Civil Division of the Attorney-General’s Office, Ministry of Finance’s legal practitioners
Dururu & Associates, Programme’s legal practitioners