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. [27] Before the arbitrator, the bald allegation was made that someone was appointed to act Judgment No. SC 31/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 553/13 in the respondent’s position and that the work that the respondent was carrying out is always available. No further detail was provided before the arbitrator. The arbitrator thereafter dwelt at length with the question whether the respondent had a legitimate expectation of his contract being renewed. He, on account of the promise made by the Chief Executive Officer, concluded that he had such an expectation. However, the arbitrator made no finding on whether, indeed, the respondent had been replaced by another person. It was only in heads of argument before the court a quo that the respondent then disclosed, for the first time, that the respondent’s duties had been taken over by one Lovemore Mupotsa who had, hitherto, been the respondent’s assistant. It was made clear that Lovemore Mupotsa had taken over the respondent’s duties in an acting capacity. [28] Clearly, on those facts, it was impossible for the court a quo to have properly concluded that the respondent had been supplanted. In the first instance, Lovemore Mupotsa had been respondent’s assistant. His duties were to assist the respondent. When the respondent’s contract was terminated, he was then, presumably, requested to also take over the respondent’s duties. There is no suggestion that his own position as assistant to the operations manager was taken over by someone else. In the circumstances no evidence was adduced to show that Mupotsa had replaced the respondent. [29] As already noted, the arbitrator made no finding on the question whether or not the respondent had been supplanted by someone else. On the facts, therefore, the court a quo had no basis for concluding, as it did, that, in fact, the respondent’s position had been taken over by Mupotsa. The failure to prove this aspect was fatal - see UZ - UCSF 12