Leonard Muzanenhamo v Mazowe Rural District Council

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE                             JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/193/2013
HELD AT HARARE ON 26 FEBRUARY, 2013                          CASE NO. LC/REV/ H/35/2006
In the matter between



LEONARD MUZANENHAMO                                     –                Applicant
And

MAZOWE RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL –                                  Respondent




Before The Honourable L. Matanda-Moyo, President
For Applicant          - J. Gumbi (Unionist)
For Respondent         - A. Mudheredhe (Legal Practitioner)


MATANDA-MOYO, L.

      This is an application for quantification of benefits following an order by

this court that;


      “Applicant is to be reinstated to his former position without loss of salary and benefits.
      In the event that reinstatement is no longer possible, Respondent is ordered to pay damages in
      lieu of reinstatement ----“


      Respondent opted to reinstate Appellant.                     Appellant has since been

reinstated into his former position. Appellant was paid his backpay. Allowances

were not paid. Applicant is claiming $26 266.00 in respect of accommodation,

mileage and lunch. Applicant also prayed for costs of suit.



      Applicant submitted that he is entitled to $400.00 rental per month. His

claim is for 43 months making a total of $12 900.00. He also added 12%tax
                                                           JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/193/2013


benefit on $835.00. Respondent on the other hand submitted that Applicant

elected to abandon the above claim in lieu of payments of$750.00.                     The

Respondent produced minutes of a meeting of 1 April 2010 where Applicant was

offered to be paid rentals as follows;


      ” $100 for October and November and $60 for December totaling $260-00. I --- totaling
      $150.
      $100 for October, $80 for November and $50 for December totaling$230.”


      Applicant according to the minutes agreed to forgo rentals for 2006 to

September 2009 and was only asking for October, November and half of

December 2009.



      Respondent also submitted that Applicant was prior to his dismissal

accommodated in a council house.             Applicant later converted the house to

homeownership. He then later sold the house. Applicant did not claim for

housing allowance which is claimable as of right. Respondent attached payslips

for other managers who are currently receiving housing allowances.



      For an application of quantification to succeed the onus is on the

Applicant to prove entitlement. In the present case Applicant has failed to prove

that he was entitled to rentals. Also Applicant has failed to refute the minutes

provided that he elected to forgo the claim for rentals. Once Applicant waived

such rights he is estopped from later claiming same. I am satisfied that firstly

Applicant elected to forgo such claim, and secondly that Applicant is entitled to

housing allowance and not rentals.




                                                                                         2
                                                     JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/193/2013


      Applicant also claimed lunch benefit. The employer provided meals at the

workplace. If an employee was working outside the station such employee was

entitled to $10 lunch.     It is true that employees were given lunch at the

workplace.   Applicant was not stationed outside his station at the time of

dismissal. He did not prove that he spent a certain amount of money for lunch

during his period of dismissal. Applicant is not entitled to $10 but could have

claimed the money he actually spent for lunch during the period of dismissal.

Applicant has failed to discharge such onus on him. This is also true for the

mileage claimed. Applicant has failed to lay the basis for such claim.



Accordingly the application fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.




Zimbabwe Rural District Council Workers Union– Applicant’s Representative

Matizanadzo and Warhurst – Respondent’s Legal Practitioners




                                                                                3