Tobias C. Sharara v Highveld Primary School

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/639/16
HELD AT HARARE, 11 OCTOBER 2016
CASE NO. LC/H/1066/14
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/639/2016
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	  JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/639/16

HELD AT HARARE, 11 OCTOBER 2016		CASE NO. LC/H/1066/14

AND 21 OCTOBER 2016

In the matter between:-

TOBIAS C. SHARARA					Appellant

And

HIGHVELD PRIMARY SCHOOL				Respondent

Before the Honourable L.M. Murasi, Judge

(IN CHAMBERS)

MURASI J:

This appeal was referred to me in terms of section 89 (2)(a) of the Labour Act (Chapter 28:01).

The brief facts show that the appellant was employed by the respondent as a teacher. At the termination of the employment contract, appellant made a claim for terminal benefits. Respondent was of the view that appellant was not entitled to the benefits he had claimed. The matter ended up in arbitration. The arbitrator made a ruling that appellant was entitled to receive an amount totalling US$5804-00. The appellant is dissatisfied with the decision and has appealed to this Court.

The appellant’s ground of appeal is inelegantly worded and is couched as follows:

“The Arbitrator erred at point of law by not considering the appellant’s dispute against the respondent that the appellant claimed that he was discriminated by earning his salaries lower than his juniors against the school policy.”

This is an appeal made in terms of section 98(10) of the Act. The requirement is that such an appeal should be on a point of law. What amounts to a point of law has been discussed in various cases by the superior courts. In Sable Chemical Industries Limited vs David Peter Easterbrook SC 18/10, GARWE JA had occasion to discuss what was meant by a point of law. The Learned Judge went further to state that it was also settled that a misdirection on the facts also amounts to a misdirection in law with the rider however that for an appellant to avail himself/herself of a misdirection as to the evidence, the nature and circumstances of the case must be such that it must be reasonably probable that the tribunal a quo would not have so determined the matter were it not for the misdirection. In casu, appellant has not pointed out that the arbitrator misdirected himself when he arrived at the decision that he did. There is no averment of a misdirection in the ground of appeal.

Further, the appellant has simply stated that the arbitrator erred on a point of law without stating what the point of law was. The following was stated by GARWE JA in the Sable Case supra at page 11 of the cyclostyled judgment:

“In order to get around this provision, some legal practitioners couch their grounds of appeal so that, on the face of it, they appear to raise issues of law when in fact they do not…

The words ‘on a question of law’ have been added simply to give the impression that what is being raised is a question of law and yet the real issue raised in that ground of appeal is……clearly an issue of fact.”

It is my view that the above sentiments clearly apply to the present case. The ground of appeal does not raise a point of law. The appeal is therefore not properly before the Court and ought to be dismissed.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.