Nickson Tafirenyika and Others v Smiths Super Track (Pvt) Ltd

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/684/2016
HARARE, 23 OCTOBER 2016
CASE NO.
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE      JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/684/2016

HARARE, 23 OCTOBER 2016			    CASE NO. LC/H/784/14

AND 4 NOVEMBER 2016

In the matter between:-

NICKSON TAFIRENYIKA AND OTHERS				Applicants

And

SMITHS SUPER TRACK (PVT) LTD					Respondent

Before Honourable L. Kudya, Judge

(IN CHAMBERS)

KUDYA, J:

This matter was postponed sine die on 20 October 2015 at the appellant’s request.  It has since then not been resuscitated hence the decision to dispose of it on the papers in terms of Section 89 (2) (a) (1) of the Labour Act.

The facts of the matter are that the appellants went before an arbitrator arguing that the respondent their employer had casualised labour by continuously renewing their fixed term contracts until 2014 when it did not renew them.  The arbitrator found on the basis of the written and oral evidence presented before him that the appellants had failed to prove their case of casualisation of labour.  The arbitrator thus threw their claim out. This irked them and drove them to appeal to the Labour Court which appeal is the subject of this judgment.

A reading of the arbitral award speaks clearly to the fact that he carefully analysed the documents presented before him and the oral evidence also presented before him.  As part of these documents there were indeed contract copies which spoke clearly to the fact that the employees should not have laboured any legitimate expectation of renewal of their contracts.  The law is clear and settled in the case of (Magodora v Care International SC-24-14) that it is not the duty of the court to contract for the parties no matter how onerous the contractual provisions may appear to it.

It is clear from the arbitrator’s reasoning that such a principle was in his mind and he exercised his discretion appropriately.  This court has no legal basis to upset his reasoning which is backed by evidence presented before him.  On that basis the court is not persuaded that appellants have a good case.

The appeal should therefore fail.

IT IS ORDERED THAT

Appeal being devoid of merit it be and is hereby dismissed.

Each party to bear own costs.