Professor Lovemore Gwanzura v Professor Levi Martin Nyagura & 3 Others

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT
NO LC/H/242/16
HELD AT HARARE 30 MARCH 2016
CASE NO
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/242/16
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE			JUDGMENT NO LC/H/242/16

HELD AT HARARE 30 MARCH 2016				CASE NO LC/REV/H/144/12

& 13 MAY 2016

In the matter between:

PROFESSOR LOVEMORE GWANZURA			Appellant

And

PROFESSOR LEVI MARTIN NYAGURA & 3 OTHERS		Respondents

Before The Honourable L Hove, Judge

For Appellant			Ms  T Nyandebvu (Legal Practitioner)

For Respondents		Mr T Chiwuta (Legal Practitioner)

HOVE, J:

The appellant was employed on a fixed term contract.  The contract expired and was renewed.  After its renewal, the appellant was fired allegedly for incompetence, needless to say this decision to terminate the contract of employment was unlawful as it did not comply with the provisions of Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] Section 12 B (2) which provides that;

“an employee is unfairly dismissed –

If subject to subsection (3), the employer fails to show that he dismissed the employee in terms of an employment code;

…

There was no hearing.  The decision to dismiss was unilateral.  The respondent failed

to show that there was compliance with the provisions of the University of Zimbabwe Act [Chapter 25:16].  Section 22 thereof provides for the procedure to be followed and it was not complied with, further the rules of natural justice were also flouted when the employer failed to accord the appellant the right to be heard.  See Muzondo v UZ 1981 ZLR 333.

The appellant was called to the office of the 1st respondent and fired 11 days after his fixed term contract was renewed.  The first fixed term contract between the parties was from 28 June 2012 and it expired on 30 September 2012.  The parties entered into another fixed term contract on 10 October 2012 and it was due to expire on 31 December 2012.  It was summarily terminated without following any procedures on 22 October 2012.

The remedy is that the appellant be paid for the unexpired portion of their fixed term contract.

The employer offered the payment up to 31 December 2012 (i.e. the unexpired portion of the fixed term contract) ordinarily this should have been the end of the matter see the cases of:

-	Chikonye & Anor v Peterhouse 1999 (2) ZLR 329

-	National Railways of Zimbabwe v Zimbabwe Railways Artisans Union & 3 Others SC 46/15

-	UZ/UCSF Collaborative Research Program in Women’s Health v Shamuyarira SC 10/10

But in casu the appellant claims that he had a legitimate expectation to have his fixed term contract renewed.

The basis of that claim is that

He was competent

He performed satisfactorily

He was not inefficient

The post had not been abolished

He had been appointed chairman and, as was the case in other universities e.g. Bindura University all persons who had been appointed into this chairmanship had eventually been appointed substantive vice chancellors and he expected the same.

It is true and trite that a fixed term contract is terminated by effluxion of time  and

as such it cannot extend after  its life.  A fixed term contract expires with the effluxion of time.

Section 12 B (3) (a)

The courts have made numerous pronouncements that the fact that a fixed term contract has been renewed before does not give rise to a legitimate expectation.  UZ/UCSF Collaborative Research Program v  Shamuyarira (supra)

Much lees the fact that someone else’s contract was renewed.  This has no relevance to the contract between the appellant and the 4th respondent.

A legitimate expectation can only lawfully arise where the employer has given specific assurances or conducted itself in a manner that assured the other side that the contract would be renewed.  See the case of

1.	Magodora & Others v Care International Zimbabwe SC 24/14

2.	Munhumutema v Topambwa & Others 2010 (1) ZLR 509 (H)

In casu no assurances where given.  The basis for the  legitimate expectation are not legally recognized grounds and thus the appeal, in so far as it seeks reinstatement after the 31 December 2012, must fail.

The appellant has already been compensated for the unexpired part of his contract and I agree that the appeal for the period before 31 December 2012 has become moot.

In the circumstances the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Sibanda & Partners, appellant’s legal practitioners

Ziumbe & Partners, respondent’s legal practitioners