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 to the court that detailed submissions on the matter were made by both parties in their heads of argument and in argument during the hearing of this appeal. Relying on the case of Williams & Anor v Msipha NO & Ors SC-22-10, the appellant correctly argued in its heads of argument that an appeal court: “must be able to intervene not only against the direct dictates of a judgment of the lower court, but also against its effect 1” However, before addressing the issue of Arbitrator Manase’s jurisdiction to hear the matter, it is my view that the nature and effect of the process of ‘retrenchment’ that the parties negotiated and acted upon, must be determined first. The appeal therefore raises two issues for determination: 1. Did the parties negotiate a retrenchment package in the manner dictated by the applicable law, and 2. Did Arbitrator Manase have jurisdiction to determine the lawfulness or otherwise, of the process that culminated in the package of benefits being paid to the respondent? In his heads of argument, the respondent correctly outlines the retrenchment procedure then applicable, as follows: “Thus, in case of agreement and forwarding of the agreement to the Retrenchment Board, the effective date of retrenchment would more or less coincide with the date of the final award …. However, if there was no agreement within one month, the provisions of s 3(8) of S.I. 186/2003 would kick in, with the dispute to be resolved in terms of s 12 (C) of the Act. That is assessment of the matter by the Retrenchment Board and its recommendations to the Minister and finally the approval of the retrenchment package by the Minister, 1 See macDonald v Canada (AG) (1994) 1 SCR 311 at 329 5