DISTRIBUTABLE
(64)
Judgment
No. SC 81/04
Civil
Appeal No. 239/01
JOB
MATENDA v
BRAVETTE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY (PRIVATE) LIMITED
SUPREME
COURT OF ZIMBABWE
CHIDYAUSIKU
CJ, MALABA JA & GWAUNZA JA
HARARE,
SEPTEMBER 6 & 30, 2004
The
appellant in person
P
Chikutu, for the
respondent
GWAUNZA
JA: The appellant was charged with and found guilty of fighting,
attacking, assaulting, threatening or attempting
to do serious bodily
harm to any other person, in contravention of the respondents
Code of Conduct. He was as a result dismissed
from his employment
with the respondent. The respondents grievance and disciplinary
committee and the appeals committee in turn
dismissed the appellants
appeal against his dismissal. The appellant appealed to the
National Employment Council for the Clothing
Industry and after that
to the then Labour Relations Tribunal, with the same result. He has
now appealed to this Court.
The court a quo
found there was overwhelming evidence to prove
(i) that the appellant had,
during an altercation with a fellow employee, a Mr Tsiga
(Tsiga), grabbed the latter firstly
by the hand and then by the
collar of his shirt, while at the same time uttering threatening
words;
(ii) that Tsigas attempt to
remove the appellants hand from his collar resulted in the shirt
getting torn;
(iii) that the confrontation was
stopped following the intervention of another employee; and
(iv) that the confrontation was
witnessed by a group of other workers.
The evidence before the court
a quo
shows that three of the workers who witnessed the confrontation gave
evidence corroborating that of Tsiga. The appellants one
witness
disclaimed any knowledge of the actual confrontation, saying he was
too far to see what was happening.
In
his grounds of appeal, the appellant challenges these findings of
fact by the Tribunal. He also, in the same grounds, denies
that the
confrontation between himself and Tsiga amounted to an assault on
Tsiga, that he ever used the word grab in relation
to his
contact with Tsigas hand, that he held him by the neck or that he
tore Tsigas shirt.
The appellant does not allege
that the Tribunal misdirected itself on a point of law, in its
analysis of these facts or the decision
that it reached.
By virtue of s 92(c) of
the Labour Relations Act [Chapter 28:04],
an appeal from a decision of the Tribunal (now the Labour Court) lies
to this Court only on points of law. This Court has therefore
no
jurisdiction to entertain an appeal on factual grounds. There is an
abundance of case authority (among others Muzuva
v United Bottlers (Pvt) Ltd
1994 (1) ZLR 217 (S); National
Foods Ltd v Magadza
SC-105-95; and Mpumela
v Berger Paints (Pvt) Ltd
1999 (2) ZLR 146 (S)) defining what is meant by point of law.
The appellants grounds of
appeal do not meet the definition. They thus raise no points of
law. As already stated, this Court
has no jurisdiction to hear an
appeal premised on factual grounds.
In
the result, the appeal is not properly before this Court, and it is
struck off the roll with costs.
CHIDYAUSIKU
CJ: I agree.
MALABA
JA: I agree.
Gula-Ndebele
& Partners,
respondent's legal practitioners