First Capital Bank v Givemore Chigwada and Others

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGEMENT NO. LC/H/294/25
HARARE, 12 MAY 2025
CASE NO. R-LC/H/257/19
In the matter between:-
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	JUDGEMENT NO. LC/H/294/25

HARARE, 12 MAY 2025	CASE NO .	R-LC/H/257/19

In the matter between:-

FIRST CAPITAL BANK	APPELLANT

And

GIVEMORE CHIGWADA AND OTHERS	RESPONDENTS

Before the Honourable Kudya J

For the Appellant	N. Mugandiwa (Legal Practitioner)

For the Respondents	M. Gwisai (Legal Practitioner)

KUDYA, J:

First Capital bank approached this court on appeal, challenging the decision of the Designated Agent for the Banking Sector who set aside the retrenchment process which the bank had taken in respect of the respondent employees.

Unhappy, with the setting aside, the bank appealed to the Labour court challenging the setting aside of the retrenchment process. The same dispute was decided by the Supreme Court in favour of the bank in SC-22-25 thus effectively putting to paid the regularity or otherwise of the retrenchment process. What this has effectively done is that the Supreme Court judgment has sealed the fate of the retrenchment argument.

2

JUDGEMENT NO. LC/H/294/25

CASE NO.	R-LC/H/257/19

Based on the concept of stare decision See Denhere v Denhere CCZ9/19 this court’s hands are tied to determine the same issue whose fate has already been sealed by the Supreme Court.

The background of the matter is that, both the employer and the employees are agreed that the Supreme Court has indeed spoken on the matter but the employees say they want to seek direct access to the Constitutional Court on the issue so that the Supreme Court decision can be set aside.

It is in the light of that argument that, on the hearing date of the instant appeal both parties finally agreed that the instant appeal be decided based on the papers in IECMS. It is noteworthy from the record that, the employees raise in defence of the appeal the propriety of the bank proceeding against the Designated Agent’s decision in an appeal process.

They also on the merits, maintain that, the retrenchment process was flawed for the reasons that were stated by the Designated Agent. It need be observed from the outset that, the dispute between the parties was primarily whether or not the retrenchment process was valid or not. The Supreme Court has spoken and said it was.

It therefore becomes an academic exercise and an exercise in futility to try and interrogate an issue whose fate has already been sealed by the Supreme Court. It therefore only behoves this court to confirm the position as laid out by the Supreme Court decision. The point in limine raised thus becomes of academic importance and is thus dismissed.

The respondent’s defence on the merits being contrary to the position set out by the Supreme Court decision can therefore not stand. In consequence, the appeal succeeds in its entirety as prayed for.

IT IS ORDERED THAT;

Appeal being merited in its entirety it be and hereby succeeds.

The Designated Agent’s decision is set aside in its entirety and is substituted with an order that the employees’ claim is dismissed. Each party bears own costs.

3

JUDGEMENT NO. LC/H/294/25 CASE NO.	R-LC/H/257/19

Kantor and Immerman, Attorneys		Appellant’s Legal Practitioners Matika, Gwisai and Partners	Respondent’s Legal Practitioners