THE Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission (Zacc) has been ordered by the Labour Court to pay its employees over $1,5 million after dismissing the commission’s claim that the court’s last judgment contained a patent error.
BY CHARLES LAITON
Zacc had filed a Labour Court application in terms of Section 92C of the Labour Act (Chapter 28:01), challenging the court’s ruling, arguing it contained a patent error and wanted it corrected.
But, Labour Court judges Justices Lillian Kudya and Lawrence Murasi last week dismissed claims the judgment was erroneous, saying: “The court is of the view that this does not amount to a patent error as alleged.”
Zacc had contested a paragraph in the judgment that read: “The benefits… to be paid with effect from the date of appointment in terms of contracts of employment.”
In its argument, the commission said it feared that employees would use the order to reap benefits, which were not due to them.
The current litigation arose after Zacc was dragged to court by 26 investigators for failure to honour its obligations pertaining to the benefits the workers were supposed to get.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
The employees cited unfair labour practice following an alleged variation of their employment contracts and the absence of conditions of service.
When the matter was taken to court, the employees won the court battle, that had been dragging on for years, prompting the commission to challenge the court’s ruling.
The commission further said the order gave effect to the re-writing of contracts between the parties. It argued that the court ruling should have indicated that the benefits were supposed to be with effect from the dates that the employees were conferred with contracts of employment.
However, the employees’ lawyer, Samuel Banda said there was nothing wrong with the court’s ruling urging the court to decline the commission’s request, claiming it lacked merit.
