Judgment
No. SC 107/04
Civil
Appeal No. 279/02
TRIANGLE
LIMITED v KHUMBULANI PHIRI
SUPREME
COURT OF ZIMBABWE
CHIDYAUSIKU
CJ, ZIYAMBI JA & MALABA JA
HARARE,
SEPTEMBER 23 & DECEMBER 16, 2004
G
Mamvura, for the
appellant
D
T Mwonzora, for the
respondent
ZIYAMBI JA: The appellant
appeals against an assessment of damages made by the Tribunal in this
matter.
On May 23 2001 the Tribunal
ordered the appellant to reinstate the respondent with no loss of
salary or benefits. In the event
that reinstatement was no
longer an option the appellant was ordered to pay to the respondent
damages, the quantum of which the parties
were to agree upon, failing
which either party could set the matter down before the Tribunal for
quantification of the damages payable.
The matter was argued before the
Tribunal which ordered that the respondent be paid:
all
salary and benefits from the date of the unlawful dismissal to the
date of judgment (19 June 2001) together with interest at the
prescribed rate.
The
unlawful dismissal took place on 21 February 1996.
The main ground of appeal
advanced by the appellant is that the Tribunal erred in law in making
an assessment of damages in the absence
of any evidence that the
respondent had made efforts to obtain alternative employment.
It was contended that the Tribunal
ought to have called for evidence
as to the reasonable period that it would take a person in the
position of the respondent to
obtain similar employment. It was
submitted that the oral submissions made by the respondents legal
practitioner did not
qualify as evidence for this purpose.
In making its assessment of the
damages due, the Tribunal relied on submissions made by the
respondents legal practitioner to the
effect that the respondent
had tried to mitigate his loss by seeking alternative employment
without success. By relying on those
submissions without having
heard evidence to substantiate them, the Tribunal misdirected itself.
In Clan
Transport Company (Private) Limited v
Clan Transport Workers
Committee SC 1/02, it
was held at p 3 of the cyclostyled judgment that:
The
fact that there is no evidence of such mitigation on the part of the
respondents of their loss is justification for interference
by this
Court with the award made.
See
Gauntlett Security
Services (Private) Limited v Leonard
1997 (1) ZLR 583. In that case this Court observed at p 588:
Since
the respondents contract of employment was not one of fixed
duration or terminable by the appellant upon notice given, I
consider
it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to call for evidence as to the
reasonable period it would take a person in the position
of the
respondent (disregarding the injury) to obtain similar employment.
And having made the necessary finding, then to deduct
from the
monthly wages paid by the appellant, the amount the respondent
actually earned or could reasonably have earned during such
period.
It follows that the Tribunals calculation of the damages suffered
was badly flawed. Even the award of back pay as
a separate item was
wrong. Only a single indivisible sum was to be specified as
damages.
In view of the misdirection by
the court a
quo,
the order cannot be allowed to stand.
Accordingly the appeal is allowed
with costs. The order of the Tribunal is set aside. The matter is
remitted to the Tribunal for
assessment of the quantum of damages
after hearing evidence.
CHIDYAUSIKU CJ: I agree.
MALABA JA: I agree.
Scanlen & Holderness,
appellant's legal practitioners
Mwonzora
& Associates,
respondent's legal practitioners