The respondent was employed by the appellant and was dismissed on 11 February 1997. The Labour Relations Tribunal declared the dismissal unlawful and ordered the appellant to reinstate the respondent or pay damages in lieu of reinstatement. The appellant opted to pay damages, but the parties could not agree on quantum. The respondent had sustained a compound fracture of the left tibia (leg injury) whilst at work, resulting in a permanent 18% disability. The injury caused him to have a foot drop due to lateral popliteal nerve palsy, pain after walking a kilometer, inability to stand for prolonged periods, and other complications. The Tribunal, relying on a medical report and its own observation of the respondent, concluded that the respondent was "almost an invalid" and had virtually no reasonable prospects of obtaining alternative employment. The respondent was about 51 years old at the time of the appeal and would attain early retirement age of 55 in December 2005. The Tribunal ordered the appellant to pay the respondent his salary and benefits from the date of unlawful dismissal to the date he would attain the age of early retirement.
The appeal was dismissed with costs, subject to the qualification that the exact percentages to be deducted for contingencies and accelerated payment, if any, should be determined by the parties or, if they cannot agree, by the Tribunal in terms of paragraph 3 of its order.
Appeals from the Labour Relations Tribunal are limited to questions of law only under s 92(2) of the Labour Relations Act. Findings of fact by the Tribunal cannot be challenged on appeal unless they are so outrageous in their defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question could have arrived at such a finding. In quantifying damages for unlawful dismissal, the Tribunal is entitled to rely on medical evidence and its own observations to assess an employee's prospects of obtaining alternative employment. When determining damages for loss of future earnings, while the principles requiring deductions for contingencies and accelerated payment are well established, the application of such deductions must take into account the specific circumstances of each case, including the economic climate, the period involved, and prevailing conditions such as hyperinflation.
The Court observed that given the prevailing harsh economic climate with high unemployment levels and unprecedented hyperinflation with indications of worsening conditions, it was not unreasonable to conclude that a 51-year-old disabled employee would be unable to find alternative employment within a four-year period. The Court noted that the respondent was "almost an invalid" based on its own observation and the medical evidence. While acknowledging that deductions for contingencies and accelerated payment are established principles, the Court indicated sympathy for the argument that in circumstances of extreme economic instability and hyperinflation, such deductions might not be appropriate or might be minimal.
This case is significant in Zimbabwean labour law jurisprudence for clarifying the scope of appeals from the Labour Relations Tribunal under s 92(2) of the Labour Relations Act, which are limited to questions of law only. It establishes that findings of fact by the Tribunal are generally not appealable unless they are so outrageous in their defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person could have arrived at them. The case also demonstrates the court's approach to quantifying damages in unlawful dismissal cases where the employee has a disability and limited prospects of alternative employment, taking into account prevailing economic conditions. It further illustrates the court's flexibility in applying established principles regarding deductions for contingencies and accelerated payment in circumstances of hyperinflation and economic instability.