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 The respondent’s argument, which was accepted by the court a quo, is that this benefit should not be limited to employees of ZENT but should extend to all grade D3 managers employed by all of the appellant’s subsidiaries. In its statement of claim in the arbitration proceedings, the respondent averred that the policy should bind all subsidiary companies, and that ZENT had “deliberately flouted this policy thus creating an unnecessary schism between employees of the same grade”. The appellant denies that the Managing Director of ZENT had the authority to vary the appellant’s motor vehicle policy. It argues that his memorandum of 14 April 2008 cannot be extended to all grade D3 managers. It is common cause that the allocation of personal issue vehicles is governed by a policy document, dated 13 May 2011, setting out the appellant’s vehicle allocation scheme. It is also not in dispute that, in terms of clause 4.2 of this policy: “Only members of staff in D4 and above are eligible for allocation of company vehicles under this scheme. …. All members of staff in grade D4 and above shall contractually be entitled to be issued with company vehicles on a personal-to-holder basis for both business and personal use.” In light of the unequivocal terms of the appellant’s policy, I am entirely in agreement with Mr Maguchu that the supposed right conferred by ZENT on one of its managers must be confined to its own grade D3 managers and cannot be extended to their counterparts in other subsidiaries. As is apparent from the respondent’s submissions before the arbitrator, its cause is based on equity and fairness rather than any legal right. There is 9