IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE

HELD AT HARARE CASE NO. LC/H/717/25

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

BENEDICT SHANGIWA 1^st APPELLANT

MARGARETH KWANGWARI 2^nd APPELLANT

MONICA MATIENGA 3^rd APPELLANT

MUKUDZEI MUVENGWI 4^th APPELLANT

JOSEPHINE CHINYAKATA 5^th APPELLANT

Versus

CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY OF ZIMBABWE 1^st RESPONDENT

MINISTER OF TRANSPORT AND

INFRASTRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT N.O. 2^nd RESPONDENT

20^th NOVEMBER 2025 , 30^th DECEMBER 2025 AND 28^TH JANUARY 2026

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE GONESI J

For the Appellants: K. GAMA

For the 1^st Respondent: T. DUVE

GONESI J:

1. THE APPEAL

This is an appeal against the decision of an Arbitrator filed in terms of Rule 19(1) of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. The appellant’s grounds of appeal are as follows:

1. The honourable arbitrator grossly erred at law in making the irrational finding that the 2^nd appellant received a retrenchment package from the 1^st respondent and retained it, and therefore waived her rights, when it was common cause that she did not receive a retrenchment package, or any other form of package, from the 1^st respondent.

2. Further, the honourable arbitrator grossly erred and seriously misdirected himself on a question of law in finding that the appellants' alleged delay in returning funds which were deposited into the bank accounts of some of them without their knowledge, let alone consent, meant, on its own, that they had waived their rights to challenge the unlawful termination of their employment.

3. Furthermore, the honourable arbitrator erred in finding that the purported retrenchments were lawful and procedural when it was common cause that the first attempt to retrench the appellants was aborted and the second attempt to retrench them was contrary to the law as no notice of retrenchment was given and no packages were paid on the date of termination of employment.

4. The honourable arbitrator also grossly misdirected himself in making the irrational finding that the purported retrenchments which were a direct result of the 1^st respondent's numerous losses in court at the hands of the appellants were not motivated by a desire to punish and harass the appellants.

5. The honourable arbitrator grossly misdirected himself and erred at law in not finding that as there was no valid reason for laying off the appellants, the immediate recruitment of persons to fill the appellants' positions being clear proof of the 1" respondent's need for their services and capacity to pay them, the purported retrenchments were unlawful and therefore invalid.

2. RELIEF SOUGHT

Wherefore appellant prays for the following relief:

a) The appeal be and is hereby allowed with costs.

b) The arbitration award of honourable arbitrator L. M. Gabilo dated 8 July 2025 be and is hereby set aside and replaced with the

i. The termination of the appellants employment by the 1^st respondent in 2018 be and is hereby set aside as it was unlawful.

ii. The 1^st respondent is directed to reinstate the appellants without loss of salaries or benefits, or pay them damages in lieu of reinstatement, if reinstatement is no longer tenable, the quantum of which shall be determined by the Labour Court upon application.

3. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The appellants are former employees of the 1^st respondent. The 1^st appellant was employed as an Officer Orderly on a one-year contract. The 2^nd appellant was employed in June 2003 as a Terminal Services Assistant on a contract without limit of time. The 3^rd appellant was employed as a Risk Officer on 1 March 2002 as an Internal Auditor. The 4^th appellant was employed on 1 September 2008 as an Aviation Security Officer Grade 3.2. The 5^th appellant was employed on 8 November 1999 as a Cashier.

In 2017, the 1^st respondent notified the 1^st to the 5^th respondents of its intention to retrench them. On 15 March 2018, the respondent invited the appellants to attend a meeting to negotiate a retrenchment package. On the 22^nd May 2018, before any retrenchment package had been agreed