ConCourt dismisses Unifreight Africa application, upholds US$153k payout

HARARE – The Constitutional Court (ConCourt) of Zimbabwe has dismissed an application by Unifreight Africa Limited (formerly Pioneer Corporation Africa Limited) who were seeking direct access to challenge a Supreme Court decision.

Unifreight Africa is a leading listed transport holding company, offering services in logistics, freight and passenger services.

They were seeking direct access to the ConCourt to challenge a Supreme Court decision ordering it to pay Emily Mashinya (the respondent) US$153 000 in damages arising from her unlawful dismissal from employment.

The respondent was employed as the group internal audit manager and was dismissed on December 6, 2013, after a disciplinary hearing.

The ensuing dispute was submitted for arbitration, which ruled in favor of the applicant. The respondent appealed to the Labour Court and later to the Supreme Court, which allowed her appeal and remitted the matter to the Labour Court.

The Labour Court handed down a default judgment reinstating the respondent. However, negotiations between the parties failed, and the respondent filed an application for quantification of damages.

The Labour Court ordered the applicant to pay US$153,300 at a 1:1 rate with Zimbabwean dollars.

Related Articles

Pioneer Africa’s name change foils court application…

Aug 22, 2024 27,167

The respondent appealed to the Supreme Court, which held that damages should be paid in United States dollars and converted to Zimbabwean dollars at the prevailing interbank rate.

The applicant sought direct access to the ConCourt, arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision breached its right to equal protection and benefit of the law.

However, the Constitutional Court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any violation of its rights and that the Supreme Court’s decision was consistent with previous rulings.

The ConCourt dismissed the applicant’s request for direct access, holding that the Supreme Court’s decision was final and binding. The court also noted that the applicant had not shown any prospects of success in its intended application.

No costs were awarded.

“Having failed to demonstrate any prospects of success in the intended substantive application, it is not in the interests of justice that the applicant be granted leave for direct access to this Court.

“As regards costs, nothing has been put forward by either party to warrant the imposition of costs on the other party. Accordingly, I see no reason to depart from the established practice of not awarding costs in constitutional matters.

“In the result, it is ordered that the instant application be and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs,” Justice Bharat Patel ruled.

Justices Rita Makarau and Ben Hlatshwayo concurred.