Maud Masendeke v Duly Holdings Ltd (Motor City Ford)

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/463/2014
HARARE 14 & 18 JULY 2014
CASE NO.
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	                 JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/463/2014

HARARE 14  & 18 JULY 2014                                                  CASE NO. LC/H/593/12

MAUD MASENDEKE					Appellant

DULY HOLDINGS LTD 					Respondent

(MOTOR CITY FORD)

Before The Honourable G. Musariri, Judge:

For Appellant 		Ms M. Masendeke, Appellant

For Respondent		Mr. C. Nyamayaro, Manager

MUSARIRI, G:

On 12th July 2012 the Honourable N.S. Zengeni made an arbitration award.  In terms therefore he dismissed Appellant’s claims against Respondent concerning unpaid overtime and unlawful termination of employment.  Appellant then appealed to this Court.   The appeal was limited to her termination.  Respondent opposed the appeal.  The grounds of appeal read as follows;

“The Hon. Arbitrator misdirected himself by arriving at a decision in favour of Respondent, without properly weighing both sides.  No evidence was adduced to warrant my contract termination.”

With due respect the grounds given were rather terse.  At best they are ambiguous.  They do not specify which points the appeal raises or the exact findings which are impugned.  I consider the grounds as void because they do not raise points of law.  In terms of section 98 (10) of the Labour Act Chapter 48:10 (hereafter called the Act) an appeal against an arbitration award must raise points of law and not fact.

The record, though, shows that Appellant was properly terminated.  She worked for Respondent as a security guard.  She worked for Respondent as a security guard.  She fell ill in September 2009 and went on sick leave.  By letter dated 4th November 2009 Respondent advised her to get a medical report on her condition.  A medical report dated 26th November 2009 recommended her retirement on medical grounds.

Respondent retired her with effect from 30th November 2009.  In December 2009 she was paid her terminal benefits.  A year letter she produced a medical report dated 29 November 2010.  The report stated that she had recovered and was fit to resume her employment.  It is on the basis on that the second report that Appellant made claims of unlawful dismissal.

The facts show that Appellant was off sick for more than 180 days.  A medical report recommended her retirement on medical grounds.  The employer retired her and paid her terminal benefits.  She took her benefits.  That was the end of her employment contract.  In terms of section 14 (4) (b) of the Act an employer may retire an employee whose period of sick leave exceeds 180 days, Respondent rightfully exercised its option under the provision to retire Appellant.  In the circumstances Appellant’s appeal is devoid of merit.

Wherefore it is ordered that,

The appeal is hereby dismissed; and

Each party shall bear its own costs.

G.   M U S A R I R I

J. U. D. G. E.