Aaron Zhomwe v BHP Minerals Company

The appellant was employed by the respondent company and was dismissed from his employment for allegedly participating in an unlawful collective job action. Following an internal disciplinary hearing, the company recommended his dismissal. The appellant appealed through the respondent's internal procedures but was unsuccessful at all levels. He then appealed to the Labour Relations Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal. He subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court.

• Whether the appellant's appeal raised a question of law permissible under section 92(2) of the Labour Relations Act [Chapter 28:01]
• Whether the Labour Relations Tribunal misdirected itself on the facts amounting to a misdirection in law
• Whether the findings of fact by the Tribunal were so outrageous as to constitute an error of law

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Appeals from the Labour Relations Tribunal to the Supreme Court are confined to questions of law under section 92(2) of the Labour Relations Act [Chapter 28:01]. While a serious misdirection on facts can amount to a misdirection in law, the Supreme Court will only interfere with factual findings where the conclusion reached is so outrageous or irrational as to constitute a failure to hear and determine according to law. Mere disagreement with findings of fact does not constitute a question of law justifying appellate intervention.

The Court noted the established jurisprudence on the meaning of 'question of law' as articulated in Mazuva v United Bottlers (Pvt) Ltd 1994 (1) ZLR 217 (S) at 220 D-F, which identifies three distinct though related meanings. The Court also referenced the principles in National Foods Ltd v Mafudza S-105-95 regarding when reasons that are bad in law constitute a failure to hear and determine according to law, and the circumstances identified in Hama v National Railways of Zimbabwe 1996 (1) ZLR 664 (S) at 669G where a misdirection would constitute a question of law leading to an irrational determination.

This case reinforces the limited appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in labour matters, emphasizing that appeals from the Labour Relations Tribunal are restricted to questions of law under section 92(2) of the Labour Relations Act. It clarifies the circumstances under which factual findings by the Tribunal may be challenged on appeal, namely only where there is a serious misdirection on facts amounting to a misdirection in law, or where the determination is irrational. The case underscores the principle that the Supreme Court will not interfere with findings of fact made by the Labour Relations Tribunal unless they are so outrageous as to constitute an error of law.