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. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT [10] Judgment No. SC 31/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 553/13 Dissatisfied once again, the appellant appealed to this Court against the dismissal of its appeal on four grounds. I cite these hereunder:“1. 2. 3. 4. [11] The learned judge of the court a quo misdirected herself and erred at law in finding as she did that the question of whether or not a contract of employment could be terminated on giving notice was inapplicable in the circumstances of the matter when it was apparent from the facts that same was the basis on which the contract of employment had been terminated. The learned judge of the court a quo misdirected herself and erred at law in upholding the principle of legitimate expectation in the circumstances solely on the basis of an alleged representation made to the respondent and yet in the absence of a specific finding of fact on the conjunctive requirement that someone else had been engaged in place of the respondent upon termination of the respondent’s employment contract. The learned judge of the court a quo misdirected herself and erred at law in finding as she did that the principle of legitimate expectation applies at all in the circumstances of the matter in light of the fact that employment contract had been terminated prior to its expiry, and at which stage the question of legitimate expectation of renewal could only have arisen. The learned judge of the court a quo misdirected herself and erred at law in upholding an award of damages by the arbitrator in excess of the unexpired period of the respondent’s employment contract.” In its heads of argument before this Court, the appellant submitted that, in the light of the judgment of this Court in Nyamande & Anor v Zuva Petroleum (Pvt) Ltd & Anor 2015 (2) ZLR 186, the finding by the arbitrator and the court a quo that it was not lawful for the appellant to terminate the respondent’s contract of employment on notice was patently flawed at law. It argued that if this Court accepts that it was lawful for the appellant to terminate the contract of employment on notice, then that would dispose of the matter. The finding by the court a quo, that the question whether or not the contract could be terminated on notice was irrelevant, was wrong because the whole dispute revolved around the lawfulness of the termination on notice. 5