Freda Rebecca Gold Mine Limited v Edmore Mapondera and 60 Others

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/23/24
HARARE, 18 OCTOBER, 2023
CASE NO. LC/H/82/11
AND 30 JANUARY 2024
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/23/24 HARARE, 18 OCTOBER, 2023		CASE NO. LC/H/82/11 AND 30 JANUARY 2024

FREDA REBECCA GOLD MINE LIMITED	APPELLANT

Versus

EDMORE MAPONDERA AND 60 OTHERS	RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable Kudya J;

For the Appellant	- Advocate T. Mpofu (Legal Practitioner) For the Respondent	- A.K. Maguchu (Legal Practitioner)

KUDYA J:

This is an appeal against the decision of the arbitrator who ruled that the respondent employees who had refused to sign new USD contracts had not repudiated their contracts and put themselves out of employment. The matter has a long and chequered history of being in the Labour Court and in the Supreme Court. The instant judgment is written out in fulfilment of a remittal order from the Supreme Court where after the Supreme Court concluded on the issue of citation it remitted the matter to this court so that the merits of the appeal could be entertained.

In response to the remitted order the parties have narrowed down the issues to whether or not it can said that the repudiation argument has been put to rest by the judgment in the case of Vackim Nyoni and other and Freda Rebecca SC-382-22. If it is concluded that the Nyoni matter puts to rest the issue of repudiation it would thus follow that the employer has a good case on appeal and that the arbitral award has to be vacated. It is noteworthy from the submissions by the parties and the records on file that the issues that were in the Nyoni case supra and in Mapondera’s case were similar. The employees however argue that the facts were different to the extent that Nyoni case may not have been argued fully thus giving rise to the determination which erroneously rules that the employees had put themselves out of employment. It is settled that where the Supreme Court has definitely ruled on an issue the Labour Court is bound. See stare decis principle Denhere v Denhere CC 29/19.

In the case at hand what can be gleamed from the totality of the documents filed on the case and the arguments advanced by the parties is that there is clearly nothing new in the Mapondera case that was not raised in the Nyoni case. To that extent the determination that once the employees refused to sign the new contracts they repudiated their contracts cannot be faulted. That in the court’s view puts to paid the argument about whether they lawfully lost their jobs etc. The court is satisfied that the issue of the employee’s status in the Nyoni case and equally in the Mapondera case has been put to paid by the decision in the Nyoni case.

The court is therefore satisfied that the employer has a good case to appeal the arbitral decision. The court therefore aligns itself with the decision in Nyoni’s case and concludes that the Mapondera fate must be the same. Having concluded as above it becomes of academic interest to interrogate in detail each of the appeal grounds as the conclusion that once the status of the employee has been settled that also answers whether the arbitral decision was good or bad at law.

In the result the court is persuaded that a good case for appeal has thus been put forward by the appellant on the strength of the Nyoni decision. The appeal should therefore succeed.

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. Appeal being merited it be and hereby succeeds.

Gill, Godlonton, and Gerrans – Appellant legal practitioners

Maguchu and Muchada- Respondents legal practitioners