Titus Mugari v Yogi Plastics

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/731/2016
HARARE, 24 OCTOBER 2016 &
18 NOVEMBER 2016
CASE NO LC/H/592/2014
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	         JUDGMENT NO LC/H/731/2016

HARARE, 24 OCTOBER 2016 &				         CASE NO LC/H/592/2014

18 NOVEMBER 2016

TITUS MUGARI							  APPELLANT

YOGI PLASTICS							  RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable G Musariri, Judge

(IN CHAMBERS)

MUSARIRI J:

This matter was referred to me for determination on the record as provided by the provisions of section (2)(a)(i) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01].

On 3rd July 2014 at Harare, Arbitrator M Dangarembizi issued an arbitration award. He dismissed the appellant’s claim of unfair dismissal from employment by the respondent. The appellant then appealed to this court. The respondent did not file an opposition. The grounds of appeal were two-fold as follows:

“1.	The Learned Arbitrator erred at law in holding that the appellant had no legitimate expectation of being re-engaged. This was wrong in that a general hand replaced the appellant as a machine operator hence someone else was employed on his behalf and he indeed had he legitimate expectation of being re-engaged.

2.	The Learned Arbitrator also erred in finding that the termination was fair because the fixed term contract had expired. This is wrong because the appellant was promised that after the shutdown he would still be employed but that is when someone else was put in his place.”

The appellant prayed that the arbitration award be set aside and he be reinstated by the respondent. The award is filed of record. In his analysis the Arbitrator noted that the appellant was employed on fixed-term contract. The last one expired in December 2013. Thus the

contract self-terminated. The appellant averred that he had a legitimate expectation of the renewal of the contract. He further averred that another employee was engaged to replace him.  The respondent’s case before the Arbitrator was that it did not promise to renew the appellant’s contract. Neither did it engage a new employee to replace the appellant. All it did was to re-assign another employer to do the duties that the appellant had been doing. The respondent produced NEC returns to prove no new employee was engaged.

In these circumstances I consider that no legitimate expectation was proved. Such expectation was not induced by the respondent. The appellant might have entertained a hope of renewal given prior renewals. But then no new employee was engaged to replace him. Thus the appellant failed to establish the second rung of legitimate expectation. In the circumstances the Arbitrator came to the correct conclusion. His award cannot be impugned.

Wherefore it is ordered that:

The appeal be and is hereby dismissed; and

The arbitration award dated the 3rd July 2014 issued by Arbitrator M Dangarembizi is upheld.

G Musariri

J U D G E