Faina Gwatidzo v Hillcrest College

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/MC/03/2014
HARARE, 23 JANUARY 2014 & 14 FEBRUARY 2014
CASE NO LC/MC/64/2010
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	JUDGMENT NO LC/MC/03/2014

HARARE, 23 JANUARY 2014 & 		     CASE NO LC/MC/64/2010

14 FEBRUARY 2014

In the matter between:-

FAINA GWATIDZO						APPELLANT

Versus

HILLCREST COLLEGE					RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable D L Hove	:	Judge

For the Appellant	A Mugwandu & E Mwandipe (Trade Unionists)

For the Respondent  T Tandiri (Legal Practitioner)

HOVE J:

This is an appeal against the decision of an arbitrator.

The grounds of appeal are that the arbitrator erred in that contrary to his finding;

There is no proven loss or damage to the kitchen utensils.

There was never a job description to warrant wilful disobedience.

Victimization/discrimination has been well documented.

These are the grounds of appeal on the merits as per page 5 of the record.

It was submitted that these grounds raise no point of law and as such there is no appeal before the court.

The arbitrator’s finding as to whether or not loss was proven is factual.

Whether or not there was a job description is also factual.

Victimization and discrimination, as raised in the ground of appeal, do not raise any point of law.

What constitutes a point of law as opposed to a point of fact has been explained in decisions by both this court and the Supreme Court.

In the case of Muzuva v United Bottles 1994 ZLR 217 (s) the term question of law was held to mean:

A question which the law itself has authoritatively   answered to the exclusion of the court answering the question itself as it thinks fit.

A question as to what the law is.

A question which is within the province of a judge instead of the jury.”

It was stated that a point of law seeks to question the true rule of law. It is something that is in the purview of a Judge and not the Jury.

The issues that the appellant is raising are not in any way seeking to put in issue what the true rule of law is. They are merely seeking to challenge the factual conclusions drawn by the arbitrator as to whether or not:

There was loss

There was wilful disobedience, and

The arbitrator was correct in holding that there was no victimization and or discrimination.

The Labour Court is a creature of statute. It has no authority to do anything apart from only those things that it has been specifically authorised to do in terms of the Parent Act i.e. the Labour Act [Cap 28:01] (“the Act”).

The court has not been given the authority to hear appeals from arbitrators based in facts. Section 98 (10) of the Act only provides for appeals on points of law. It provides as follows:-

“An appeal on a point of law from a decision of an arbitrator appointed in terms of this Act shall lie to the Labour Court.”

The initial point raised against the appeal must therefore succeed.

Other grounds raised during arguments are not properly before the court as only those heads outlined on page 5 of the record constitute the entire grounds of appeal. There has not been any application to amend the ground. The only grounds that are therefore properly before the court are those on page 5 and they raise no point of law.

In the circumstances the appeal must fail as the grounds of appeal do not raise any point of law. I therefore make the following order:

The appeal be and is hereby dismissed.

Tandiri Law Chambers, respondent’s legal practitioners