11 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 32/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 807/16 “The general principle, now well established in our law, is that once a court has duly pronounced a final judgment or order, it has itself no authority to correct, alter or supplement it. The reason is that the court thereupon becomes functus officio: its jurisdiction in the case having been fully and finally exercised, its authority over the subject matter ceases. The other equally important consideration is the public interest in bringing litigation to finality. The parties must be assured that once an order of court has been made, it is final and they can arrange their affairs in accordance with that order.” In the case of Kassim v Kassim 1989 (3) ZLR 234 (H) at p 242 C-D the court held that:“In general, the court will not recall, vary or add to its own judgment once it has made a final adjudication on the merits. The principle is stated in Firestone South Africa (Pvt) Ltd v Genticuro Ag 1977 (4) SA 298 (A) at 306, where TROLLIP JA stated: ‘The general principle, now well established in our law, is that, once a court has duly pronounced a final judgment or order, it has itself no authority to correct, alter, or supplement it. The reason is that it thereupon becomes functus officio: its jurisdiction in the case having been fully and finally exercised, its authority over the subject matter has ceased.’” Furthermore, in Unitrack (Pvt) Ltd v Telone (Pvt) Ltd SC 10/18 MAVANGIRA AJA (as she then was) held as follows: “It is a general principle of our law that once a court or judicial officer renders a decision regarding issues that have been submitted to it or him, it or he lacks any power or legal authority to re-examine or revisit that decision. Once a decision is made, the term “functus officio” applies to the court or judicial officer concerned.” (my emphasis) In his award, Mr Manase sought to reinstate into his former employment, an employee (the respondent) who had freely and consciously signed an agreement to terminate such employment, and accepted the benefits agreed to between the parties. He thus purported to revive a moribund employment contract as well as reverse the import of Arbitrator Bvumbe’s