Zimbabwe Rule of Law Journal |29 interpretation of the provisions of sections 65(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe as read with s12B of the Labour Act [Chapter 28.01] requires dismissal not only to be lawful but fair. Hence the penalty to terminate ought not only to be lawful but fair. In the case of Sidumo & Another v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd & Others (2007) 12 BLLR 1097 (Sidumo), the South African Supreme Court ruled that in deciding dismissal disputes in terms of the compulsory arbitration provisions of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA), Commissioners should approach a dismissal with ‘a measure of deference’ because the commissioner ought to be persuaded that dismissal is the only fair sanction. The Supreme Court held that once the employer establishes that dismissal is the only fair sanction, and the end of the inquiry as the discretion to dismiss lies with the employer. This approach is the same as the one adopted in the judgments of Toyota v Posi SC -55-2007; Tregers Plastics (Pvt) Ltd v Woodreck Sibanda and Anor SC-22-2012; and Innscor Africa Limited v Letron Chimoto SC264-2010 where the Supreme Court clearly concretise the sanctity and supremacy of the employer’s decision to dismiss in cases where there is belief that the misconduct goes to the root of the contract. The South African Constitutional Court ruled that the Sidumo case raised constitutional issues especially in view of the fact that the Labour Relations Act was enacted to give effect to the rights contained in ss 23 and 33 of the South African Constitution.13 Further, the court noted that the issues pertaining to the determination of the powers and functions of the Labour Court canvassed in the Sidumo case are essentially constitutional issues.14 The South African Constitutional Court (SCC) in disposing the Sidumo case ruled that, although s23 (1) of the South African Constitution affords fair labour practices to both the employer 13 See p 50 of the Sidumo judgment. 14 See para 51 ibid.