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 entitled to foreign travel and office furniture as well as the housing loan which he claimed. In respect of a motor vehicle benefit that had been withdrawn, the arbitrator held that the respondent should be paid damages and he also ordered three months’ worth of salary as compensation for the personal loan. On 24 June 2009, the appellant calculated the severance package which the respondent signed “without prejudice”. The money was subsequently deposited into his account. In an apparent volte face, the respondent later contended that the package had not been properly calculated and that his date of termination should change from 31 March 2009 to the date he would be paid what he contended he was entitled to. He also at this stage questioned the lawfulness of the ‘retrenchment’ process even though it had resulted in him signing for and accepting, a package in terms of Arbitrator Bvumbe’s award. This new challenge to a process that had been concluded between the parties was referred to a different Arbitrator, Mr Manase. His terms of reference encapsulated the respondent’s challenge to the earlier ‘retrenchment’ process concluded through Arbitrator Bvumbe’s award. They read as follows: “(i) Whether or not respondent`s purported retrenchment of applicant and the process that followed was lawful, and (ii) Whether or not applicant is still an employee of respondent in terms of the law.” 3