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 This shows that the appellant and its subsidiaries were not separate units but one economic entity. Thus, on the basis of the decision in Deputy Sheriff v Trinpac Investments (Pvt) Ltd & Anor 2011 (1) ZLR 548 (H), the ground of appeal on this question is unsustainable. Mr Maguchu counters that there is no justification in casu for overriding the well-entrenched company law principle of separate legal personality and liability as between distinct corporate entities. The judgment in the Trinpac case makes it clear that the one entity principle is only applicable in limited circumstances, none of which is applicable on the facts of this case. This first ground of appeal relates, in essence, to the orders of the arbitrator and the court a quo requiring the appellant to apply its personal issue motor vehicles scheme to all grade D3 managers employed by all of its subsidiaries. Given my conclusion in respect of that specific issue, it is not necessary to delve into the merits of this particular ground of appeal. In any event, it seems unnecessary to broach the scope of the single economic entity principle canvassed in the Trinpac case, since it is fairly obvious that the court a quo erred in upholding an award against the appellant’s subsidiaries which were not parties before the arbitrator or the court. Whether or not it would have been proper to regard these subsidiaries as operational appendages of the appellant, they themselves should have been separately cited as parties in the proceedings below. 11