Joice Guhwa v Traditional Medical Practitioners' Council

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/295/25 HARARE, 26 JUNE 2025
CASE NO. LC/H/355/25
In the matter between:-
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/295/25 HARARE, 26 JUNE 2025		CASE NO.	LC/H/355/25

In the matter between:-

JOICE GUHWA	APPLICANT

And

TRADITIONAL MEDICAL PRACTIONERS’ COUNCIL	RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable Kudya J

For the Applicant	M. Kavhumbura (Legal Practitioner)

For the Respondent	L. T. Muradzikwa (Chief Law Officer)

KUDYA, J:

This matter was set down as an application for quantification of damages due to the applicant employee following her success on appeal at the Supreme Court, where her dismissal was adjudged to be unlawful.

She made a variety of claims but on the day of hearing of the matter her representative indicated to the court that only 2 issues were in contention, that is, gratuity and cash in lieu of leave.

It is only those 2 issues that are addressed by this judgment. It is also noteworthy that, in the papers filed of record the were contests in limine and contests on the other claims but since parties agreed that this court only decide gratuity and cash in liue of leave, this court shall therefore only confine itself to the 2 issues.

salary.

Each of the issues is addressed below.

Gratuity

It is clear from legal authorities of DNS Pvt Ltd v ZIMRA HC- 722/19 and

Standard Chartered bank v Matsika 19197(2)ZLR 389 H that gratuity is not part of the

In the case at hand, the employer argues that, when the salary moved to USD$ 500.00 such an increase included gratuity and all other benefits. The document referred to only speaks to the change in salary which change is distinct from gratuity which was contained in a clause separate from the salary clause in the 2011 contract. There was no evidence tendered to show that the 2 were lumped up together.

It is settled that he was alleges has to prove See Circle Tracking v Mahachi SC4/07.

It is clear from the submission that gratuity and salary were merged that such is not backed by evidence on record. That being the case, the court has no reason to doubt applicant’s entitlement of her 30% of her salary of USD $500 per month for the 12 years she worked for respondent. She therefore succeeds in the gratuity claim.

Cash in lieu of leave

The cut off point of 90 days as the maximum claimable was conceded by the applicant. No evidence to show that applicant proceeded on leave to utilise her leave day was tendered. All that court was left with was applicants uncontroverted word that, for her period of employment she did not proceed on leave. She therefore succeeds on the leave claim.

The quantification of damages in respect of gratuity and cash in lieu of leave being merited it be and hereby succeeds. Respondent should pay the applicant gratuity and 90 days cash in lieu of leave as tabulated below:-

Gratuity 30% by USD 500 x 12 months

Total  1800

Leave days 90 days x USD 500 Total 1500

Grand total USD 3300.00

No good case for costs was made so each party shall bear own costs

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Application for quantification of damages in respect of gratuity and cash in lieu of leave be and hereby succeeds.

Respondent is to pay applicant, gratuity in the sum of USD 1800 and cash in lieu of leave USD 1500 total USD 3300.

Kavhumbura Law Chambers	Applicant’s Legal Practitioners