ST Giles Medical Rehabilitation Centre V Lambert Patsanza

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/656/2013
HARARE, 18 AND 20 NOVEMBER 2013
CASE NO.
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	                 JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/656/2013

HARARE, 18 AND 20 NOVEMBER 2013	    		  CASE NO. LC/H/116/2013

In the matter between:-

ST GILES MEDICAL REHABILITATION CENTRE		Applicant

And

LAMBERT PATSANZA						Respondent

Before The Honourable F.C. Maxwell,: Judge

(IN CHAMBERS)

MAXWELL J.;

This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.  On the 27 September 2013 I dismissed the appeal by the Applicant who had been challenging the Arbitrator’s finding that an employer could not extend the probation period beyond 3 months pursuant to section 12 (5) of the Labour Act.  I disagreed with Applicant’s allegation that the Arbitrator

erred by concluding that the Respondent’s contract of employment was unlawfully terminated when evidence showed that the contract was properly terminated after giving the required two weeks’ notice.

misdirected herself by failing to take into account that Appointment to permanent position in its employment is not by operation of the law but subject to a written letter of appointment and a satisfactory medical examination.

‘s award of salaries and benefits to the date of the arbitral award was untenable at law as it has no basis at all.

failed to take into account that the Respondent turned down fresh offer of employment and therefore was not entitled to any benefits beyond the termination of his employment.

‘s award is outrageous in its defiance of logic that any other tribunal faced with the same set of facts would make a different finding.

In an application of this nature one ought to consider whether there are any prospects of success on appeal.  See Canesius Chipangura v Environmental Management Agency SC 35/2012.  In terms of Section 92F (1) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] an appeal lies to the Supreme Court from any decision of this Court on a question of law only.  I am satisfied that what applicant is rising is a question of law.  The issue involves the interpretation of section 12 (5) of the Labour Act.  I am of the view that there is a probability that the Supreme Court may interpret the said section in a manner different from what is reflected in Labour Court judgment LC/H/399/13.  For that reason I am inclined to grant leave.

In the premises it is ordered as follows:

The applicant be and is hereby granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against

Labour Court judgment number LC/H/399/13.

There shall be no order as to costs.