Judgment No. HB 6/2002

                                          Case No. HC 1679/2001

SIDNEY NOBANDA

versus

SCOTFIN LIMITED

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

KAMOCHA J

BULAWAYO 18 JANUARY & 14 FEBRUARY 2002

J. Sibanda  for the applicant

R.Y. Phillips for the respondent

Opposed Application

      KAMOCHA J:  The applicant was a former employee of Scotfin

Limited “the respondent”.  He worked as a Loss Control Officer at its Bulawayo

office.  During the year 2000, the respondent resolved to retrench 124 non-managerial

employees country wide in a down sizing exercise.  The applicant was one of those

affected by the exercise.  During his employment with the respondent, the applicant

had use of a motor vehicle.  He did so for a period of six years and was even taxed for

the use of the vehicle.  The applicant enjoyed unlimited use of the vehicle, taking it

home over weekends and public holidays.  He also did personal errands with it.  These

circumstances led the applicant to believe that he was entitled to purchase the vehicle

in terms of the memorandum of agreement of the works council negotiating

committee.  Item 7 thereof which deals with the purchase of company vehicles says

this:-

      “Company vehicles

      To be purchased at book value or 25% of market value whichever is lower       (average of  3 quotations)  The bank reserves the right to identify garages to   give quotations”.

                                                      6/02

                              -2-

      The respondent on the other hand contended that the applicant was not entitled

to purchase the vehicle under the agreement.  It explained that at all given times when

the retrenchment package was discussed, it was made clear that only managerial staff

who were allocated vehicles as personal issue and to whom the vehicle constituted a

benefit, in terms of each manager’s individual terms of contract of employment, were

allowed as part of the package to purchase the motor vehicle issued to them.

      All vehicles driven by non-managerial staff were classified as bank pool

vehicles which staff used as and when it was necessary for business purposes, to use

them.  In the case of staff who normally worked outside the office like loss controllers

and investigators, such employees had been given permission for each, to use a

particular vehicle and to take the vehicle home overnight, for practical purposes, since

sometimes they had to go home very late.  The vehicles remained pool vehicles, liable

to recovery or re-allocation at any time.  Since there was limited private use from

work to home and back, that use had to be taxed.

      The above explanation was proffered to the applicant by letter dated 23  April

2001 before he instituted these proceedings.  It should have been quite clear to him

that there were serious disputes of fact which could not be resolved on the papers

without going to trial.

      It should also have been clear to him that there was no leeway for the robust

and common sense approach.

      When this was pointed out to Mr Sibanda when he was arguing the matter he

made a concession and requested that thFINDER  DAT"fGí2[1]DESKTOP    "öFí2RESOURCEFRKöFí2

HB005-02DOC J¹,\HB006-02DOC ØQ¸,3rHB007-02DOC -G¸,mfHB008-02DOC Ú\¿, ´HB004-02DOC øF¸,ú~HB010-02DOC ¥h¸,9†HB011-02DOC 8c¿,|xHB012-02DOC …TÒ,¹´HB013-02DOC ³J¹,[1]ìHB015-02DOC ÌD¸,‰[1]dHB016-02DOC tG¸,»[1]lHB014-02DOC ji¸,ñ[1]bHB018-02DOC =J¸,£

 8 January 2002 for              having cited it wrongly.

      (5)   The applicant shall pay costs for the hearing of  18 January 2002.

Job Sibanda & Associates applicant’s legal practitioners

Gill, Godlonton & Gerrans respondent’s legal practitioners