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. Judgment No. SC 35/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 519/17 It is abundantly clear from the foregoing that the respondent’s claim for unpaid allowances was founded upon the 2009 CBA. However, as I have already observed, the 2009 CBA of 17 February 2009 is deafeningly silent on the allowances that are the subject of these appeal proceedings. It is common cause that there is no other agreement that was concluded in 2009. Indeed, as counsel for the respondent was constrained to concede, although the benefits claimed might have been in existence, it is not clear where the benefits granted were recorded. What then emerges is that the respondent’s cause of action in respect of the school fees allowance and fuel allowance increase was founded on an instrument which is either irrelevant or non-existent. It is therefore absolutely unclear what agreement or document was presented to and considered by the arbitrator and the court a quo to support the respondent’s claims for those allowances. These claims are simply not sustainable on the papers before this Court. However, for the sake of completeness, I will proceed to consider the additional submissions made by counsel in respect of those allowances. In any event, in light of the above findings, it becomes unnecessary to determine the applicability aspect of the third ground of appeal, to wit, whether the court a quo erred in concluding that the 2009 CBA pertained to the respondent which was not a party thereto and which had not been formed as at 2009. Indeed, at the hearing of the appeal, this aspect was not ventilated at all by either counsel, as it became obvious that it had been rendered otiose. 6