Bothwell Tavengwa v Orchard Lane (Pvt) Ltd (T/A Matojeni)

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT
NO LC/H/24/13
HELD AT HARARE 29TH NOVEMBER 2012
CASE NO
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE		JUDGMENT NO LC/H/24/13

HELD AT HARARE 29TH NOVEMBER 2012		CASE NO LC/H/79/11

BOTHWELL TAVENGWA					Applicant

ORCHARD LANE (PVT) LTD				Respondent

(T/A MATOJENI)

Before The Honourable G Musariri, President:

For Applicant		Mr B Tavengwa, Applicant

For Respondent		Mr B Diza, Attorney

MUSARIRI, G:

On 11th January 2012 this Court made an order.  In terms thereof, Respondent was ordered to reinstate Applicant’s employment. Alternatively Respondent was ordered to pay Applicant damages for loss of employment in a sum either agreed by the parties or assessed by this Court.  On 9th February  2012 the parties drew up and signed an agreement.  As a result of the agreement, Respondent paid Applicant an amount of US$998.74.  On 2nd May 2012 Applicant then filed the present application. He seeks payment of the sum of US$16 296.00 as damages for loss of employment.

JUDGMENT NO LC/H/24/13

Respondent’s response is set out briefly as follows,

“1.	The application by Applicant is without merit as both parties agreed on the quantum of damages payable to Applicant by Respondent.

2.	Applicant was paid all his dues as more fully appears from the documents attached hereto as Annexure “A”.

3.	The application must be dismissed with costs on a legal practitioner	and client scale.”

Applicant explained his signature on the Annexure thus,

“To me the document I signed is the one used in payoffs.  I signed the

document because it was to the effect that Matonjeni was paying my

January 2011 salary… I therefore stand by my submissions that no agreement was entered into regarding the payment of damages.”

Unfortunately for Applicant the Annexure, which he signed, belied his

case .  It specifically provided that,

“By signature below both parties warrant that each other’s dues have been accurately computed compensated and henceforth neither owes the other for anything.”

(The underlining for emphasis is mine.)

The wording is self-explanatory.  After signing and receiving payment in terms of the Annexure, Applicant acknowledged henceforth he had no other claim against Respondent.  He does not say that he was coerced into signing the Annexures.  Neither does he say he was induced by fraud into signing.  Perhaps

JUDGMENT NO LC/H/24/13

he later realised that he had made a bad bargain.  The signal lesson to would-be claimants in Applicant’s position is caveat subscripto (let the signor beware.)  Once you sign a document you are bound by its contents however unpalatable the bargain turns out to be.

Wherefore it is ordered that,

The application for assessment of damages is hereby dismissed; and

Each party shall bear its costs.

G. MUSARIRI

PRESIDENT