Samson Manjolo v Omnia Nutriology (Private) Ltd

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/220/2023
HARARE, 11 JULY 2023 & 18 JULY 2023
CASE NO LC/H/1110/22
In the matter between:-
SAMSON MANJOLO
APPLICANT
OMNIA NUTRIOLOGY (PRIVATE) LTD
RESPONDENT
---------


==============================

In the matter between:-

SAMSON MANJOLO

APPLICANT

OMNIA NUTRIOLOGY (PRIVATE) LTD

RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable Kudya J

For the Applicant

In Person

For the Respondent

Mr G. Chingoma (Legal Practitioner)

KUDYA, J:

This is an application for quantification of damages due to the applicant following the following order by the Supreme Court:-

IT IS ORDERED BY CONSENT THAT;

1. ....................

2. ....................

3. The issue of quantification of damages is remitted to the Labour Court for proper determination.

As background to the matter, parties submitted that after the 16/3/18 SC 357/16 order parties filed with the court a quantification application whose fate could not be sealed since all papers pertaining to same were lost when the Labour Court moved offices from Bristol house to the Rotten Row Labour Court building.

In the instant application the applicant seeks 9 months back pay, 30 months damages, medical aid, pension and motor vehicle allowance. At the onset of the hearing the applicant dropped the medical aid claim and the motor vehicle allowance claim thus effectively leaving for determination the question of back pay and damages only. As regards the pension component the applicant agreed that he could not claim same from applicant but requested that the court order the respondent to pay his dues to the pension fund so that he can access his pension dues. In the same spirit the respondent conceded the 9 months backlog effectively leaving the determination only of the 30 months damages. It is only this 30 months claim which shall be largely addressed by this judgement.

It is settled that once an employee is dismissed he has a duty to mitigate his loss. See Ambali v Bata 1999(1)ZLR 417(S). In the case at hand the applicant favoured the court with letters of regret when he tried to get alternative employment around 2012 and 2013. In a nutshell all the tendered documents showed that applicant was unsuccessful in his job search. On the other hand the respondent tendered to court an expert opinion by Industrial Psychology Consultants who indicated that at the time of the report that is around 2012 applicant’s chances of getting alternative employment were pegged between 6 months and 1 year. The report however hastened to mention that the economic environment was dwindling and that some companies were downsizing thus increasing the chances of unemployment. The court takes judicial notice of the fact that whilst employment was not easy to get in 2012 it has gotten worse now with the economic meltdown where unemployment has surged to beyond the 80% mark. The court does not lose sight of the fact that appellant’s blemished record may also have militated against his chance of getting employment. Further to that as he is also ageing that also militates against his job chances. He says he is a holder of a mere ‘O’ Level certificate and if that is juxtaposed against the increased rate of literacy in the country which has seen most people obtaining degrees it is thus not far fetched to agree with him that his chances are rendered slim in such an environment.

The court notes that the cumulative effect of the odds against the applicant vis age, qualifications, tarnished image is that it would be expecting too much to expect the applicant to have gotten a job within the period suggested by the Industrial Consultants. The court is satisfied that the order of 30 months which had been made by the Designated Agent was well in sync with what this court has just considered. The court is not persuaded that the claim should be lowered to the tune of 6 months as proposed by the respondent. In the ultimate the court is satisfied that applicant has made out a good case for his award of 9 months back pay and 30 months damages.


IT IS ORDERED THAT

Application for quantification of damages being merited it be and hereby succeeds. Respondent to pay applicant 9 months back pay and 30 months damages total USD 699 x 39 months = USD $27,261. Each party bears own costs.

*Godman Law Firm, Respondent’s Legal Practitioners*
--- END OCR FALLBACK ---