IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE CASE NO: LC/H/625/22

HELD AT HARARE
In the matter between:-

SARAH MUDIMU APPLICANT

AND
GOLDEN KNOT GROUP OF COMPANIES 1st RESPONDENT
AND
WILSON C. CHANAKIRA 2nd RESPONDENT

1st RESPONDENT’S HEADS OF ARGUMENT

HEADS IN MAIN
1. It is submitted that the Applicant awarded the 2 nd Respondent fuel and airtime which he
was not contractually entitled to. See the following authorities:
Magodora & Ors v Care International Zimbabwe 2014 (1) ZLR 397 (S).
Wells v South African Alumenite Company 1927 AD 69 at 73.
South African Mutual Aid Society v Cape Town Chamber of Commerce 1962 (1) SA 598
(A) at 615D.
First National Bank of SA Ltd v Transvaal Rugby Union & Another 1997 (3) SA 851 (W)
at 864E-H.

2. It is further submitted that it is just and equitable that the 50% US dollar allowance be
paid at the prevailing bank rate. See the following authorities:
S.I 33 of 2019.
Finance Act (No.2) of 2019.
Zambezi Gas Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd v N.R Barber (Pvt) Ltd & Another SC 03/20.
Gift Bob David Samanyau & 38 Others v Fleximail HH 108/11.
Terence Alan Blake & Anor v TABS Lighting (Pvt) Ltd SC 13/10.
Delta Beverages (Pvt) Ltd v Murandu SC 349/13.
HEADS IN DETAIL
1. It is submitted that the Applicant awarded the 2 nd Respondent fuel and airtime which he
was not contractually entitled to.
1.1.The 2nd Respondent is not contractually entitled to airtime or fuel allowance. The
award of the same by the Applicant is unfounded hence it ought to be dismissed.
Neither the 2nd Respondent’s contract of employment nor his offer letter provides for
such.

1.2.Therefore, the claims are unfounded and they ought not to be confirmed by this
Honourable Court as they are baseless. It is a time honoured principle of law that
contracts are sacrosanct and ought to be abided by as such.

1.3.In Magodora & Ors v Care International Zimbabwe 2014 (1) ZLR 397 (S), it was
held that it is not open to the courts or the hearing authority to rewrite a contract
entered into between the parties or to excuse any of them from the consequences
of the contract that they have freely and voluntarily accepted, even if they are
shown to be onerous or oppressive.

1.4.This is so as a matter of public policy as was held in Wells v South African Alumenite
Company 1927 AD 69 at 73. It is also generally not permissible to read into the
contract some implied or tacit term that is in direct conflict with its express terms.
This was shown in a plethora of cases like South African Mutual Aid Society v Cape
Town Chamber of Commerce 1962 (1) SA 598 (A) at 615D; First National Bank of
SA Ltd v Transvaal Rugby Union & Another 1997 (3) SA 851 (W) at 864E-H.

1.5.Therefore, the award of fuel and airtime is unfounded and the 2 nd Respondent was
also not supposed to have been awarded these benefits in the first place. In any
event, there was no basis for awarding the 2 nd Respondent airtime allowance when
he was not in employment between May to October 2021. This is an allowance for
the proper running of business which was awarded to him when there was no work
he was doing. It is submitted that this is not a benefit to be awarded to the 2 nd
Respondent in the circumstances.

1.6.The draft ruling should therefore not be confirmed to this extent.

2. It is further submitted that it is just and equitable that the 50% US dollar allowance be
paid at the prevailing bank rate.
2.1.It is submitted that the 50% outstanding salary of US$2 750.00 should be paid at
the prevailing interbank rate. The 1 st Respondent offered to pay the same using the
prevailing bank rate but the 2nd Respondent refused insisting on US dollar payment.

2.2.The 1st Respondent can only pay the outstanding salaries, with the US component
being paid at the prevailing interbank rate. This is in terms of the law but the 2 nd
Respondent seems to insist to have the payment in US dollars. The Applicant erred
in not specifying this in the draft ruling.

2.3.S.I 33 of 2019 as codifies in the Finance Act (No.2) of 2019 are clear that obligation
in US dollars are payable at the equivalent prevailing rate in Zimbabwean dollars.
The case of Zambezi Gas Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd v N.R Barber (Pvt) Ltd & Another SC
03/20 is also instructive in this regard.

2.4.To insist on foreign currency payment, the 2 nd Respondent should make an

application for a declarator which the High Court only has jurisdiction to grant in the
appropriate circumstances. This was held in the cases of Gift Bob David Samanyau &
38 Others v Fleximail HH 108/11; Terence Alan Blake & Anor v TABS Lighting (Pvt)
Ltd SC 13/10.

2.5.According to the case of Delta Beverages (Pvt) Ltd v Murandu SC 349/13, this would
be where the party seeking such relief has pleaded or made out clearly that he or
she is entitled to relief in foreign currency. This has not been demonstrated in this
case.

2.6.The confirmation of the draft ruling is therefore opposed in this regard.

WHEREFORE, the 1st Respondent prays for the application to be dismissed.

DATED AT HARARE THIS DAY OF JULY 2022.

 ___________________________________

1 st Respondents Legal Practitioners

No. 7 Frank Johnson Avenue
Eastlea
HARARE (MAT/03105C/tk)

TO: THE REGISTRAR

Labour Court of Zimbabwe
HARARE
AND
TO: SARAH MUDIMU
Applicant
Ministry of Labour & Social Welfare
Block 1, Makombe Building Complex
Cnr Hebert Chitepo/ Harare Street
HARARE

AND
TO: WILSON CHANAKIRA
2nd Respondent
C/O Chikonde Health and Wellness Centre
MACREADI House (Room 18)
Corner Mbuya Nehanda/ Speke Avenue
HARARE