L.M. Berejena and 82 Others v Zesa Enterprises

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/744/2013
HARARE, 16 SEPTEMBER 2013
CASE NO.
JUDGMENT NO. LC/744/2013
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	                 JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/744/2013

HARARE, 16 SEPTEMBER 2013		           		       CASE NO. LC/H/1015/12

AND 31 JANUARY 2014

In the matter between:-

L.M. BEREJENA AND 82 OTHERS				Appellant

And

ZESA ENTERPRISES						Respondent

Before The Honourable Makamure, Judge

For Appellant		Ms L. Samunda (Legal Officer)

For Respondent		Mr M. Baera (Legal Practitioner)

MAKAMURE J:

This is an appeal against the decision of an Arbitrator.  The Appellants were employed by the Respondent on the basis of fixed term contracts.  The appellants had been so employed for varied periods some dating back to 2005 and others to 2011.  All these fixed term contracts were not renewed when they expired in July 2012.  When the Appellants were not reengaged they were aggrieved and the matter was subsequently referred to arbitration.  The issues for determination were;

Whether or not the claimants were unfairly dismissed and whether they should be deemed permanent employees.

To determine the appropriate remedy.

The learned Arbitrator found that the Appellants were not unfairly dismissed.  The learned Arbitrator noted that while the Appellants’ contracts terminated during the middle of July 2012, they were paid till the end of July 2012.  This appears to compensate for the notice period.

It is trite that a contract of fixed duration expires on the agreed date.  There is no obligation on the part of the employer to reengage the employees.  Under the circumstances of this case the Appellants had no basis to expect to have their contracts renewed. The respondent had not made some underlying representation which would have justified their expectation (See PTC v Managerial Employees Workers Committee 1998 (I) ZLR 444).

In their grounds of appeal Appellants raise the issue of legitimate expectation, that other persons were engaged in their stead and that the Respondent unilaterally and unlawfully terminated the Appellants’ contracts.  It is trite, and as earlier noted, that contracts of fixed duration expire with the effluxion of time.  The question of unilateral and unlawful termination of contract therefore does not arise.  The Appellants suggest that other reasons were reengaged in their stead but the Appellants did not prove this.  The Respondent is said to have reengaged only seven (7) out of the 83.  Thus it was in appropriate for the Appellants to make an unfounded assertion.

Having stated the above, I find no error in the determination by the Arbitrator.  There is therefore no merit in the appeal.

Accordingly it is ordered that the appeal be and is hereby dismissed.

ZESA Technical Employees Association – Representatives for the Appellants

Baera & Company – Respondent’s Legal Practitioners