DISTRIBUTED BY VERITAS TRUST Tel: [263] [4] 794478 Fax & Messages [263] [4] 793592 E-mail: veritas@mango.zw Veritas makes every effort to ensure the provision of reliable information, but cannot take legal responsibility for information supplied. requirements of s 12B (3) (b) (i) and (ii) are present which makes the termination to be Judgment No. SC 31/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 553/13 deemed an unfair dismissal.” [14] The respondent was clear that he does not take issue with the lawfulness of his contract being terminated on notice but rather the existence, at the time of termination, of the promise of re-engagement made by the Chief Executive Officer and the fact that another person was employed in his stead. In other words the termination on notice would have been lawful but for the promise of re-engagement made by the Chief Executive Officer and the appointment of Lovemore Mupotsa in his place. He submitted that the arbitrator was alive to the requirement that, in addition to the requirement of legitimate expectation, there had to be evidence that the respondent was replaced by another person. ISSUES ARISING FOR DETERMINATION [15] On the basis of the papers before me and, in particular, the heads of argument filed by both parties, as well as oral submissions during the hearing, I am of the view that three issues arise for determination. These are, firstly, whether the termination envisaged in s 12B of the Act includes all forms of termination and, in particular, termination on notice. Secondly, whether the court a quo was correct in holding, as it did, that the question of termination on notice was irrelevant. Thirdly, whether the second requirement in s 12B 3(b)(ii) of the Act, namely, whether another person replaced him, was met. [16] The parties were agreed that the law does permit the termination of a contract of employment on giving the requisite notice in terms of the contract of employment. The parties were also agreed that an employer can terminate a fixed term contract by 7