Central Africa Batteries v John Mhangu

The respondent was unlawfully suspended from employment by the appellant on 5 January 1998. During the period of suspension, the respondent was entitled to payment of Z$692,118.00. On 9 September 2002, the respondent took up employment elsewhere, thus repudiating his contract of employment with the appellant. The court a quo awarded the respondent $21,141.58, calculated on the basis of US$208.76 per month (the salary earned by appellant's employees in the same grade in 2009, some 12 years after the unlawful suspension).

• Whether the amount owed to an employee for unlawful suspension should be calculated based on the salary at the time of suspension or at a later date
• Whether compensation should be converted to foreign currency and at what exchange rate
• The appropriate method for quantifying damages arising from unlawful suspension

The appeal was allowed. The order of the court a quo was set aside and substituted with: 1) The appellant is to pay the respondent Z$692,118.00 to be converted to United States Dollars at a rate to be agreed between the parties, failing which any party may make an application to the court a quo for determination of the applicable rate of exchange; 2) Each party to pay its own costs.

When calculating compensation for unlawful suspension from employment, the amount payable should be the actual sum owed during the suspension period, converted to the applicable currency at the exchange rate prevailing at the date of repudiation of the employment contract, not based on salary levels years after the suspension or at an arbitrary later date. The court will not accept a formula that inflates the award based on salary levels many years after the relevant period of unlawful suspension.

The court observed that it would have ordered costs against the respondent to mark its disapproval of the intemperate language used in his heads of argument, but refrained from doing so only because the parties had agreed that each would bear its own costs. This serves as a warning to litigants and legal practitioners about maintaining appropriate decorum in court documents.

This case establishes important principles regarding the quantification of employment-related debts in the context of currency changes and economic instability. It confirms that compensation for unlawful suspension should be based on the actual amount owed at the relevant time, not inflated to reflect later salary levels. The case also provides guidance on currency conversion in employment disputes, holding that the appropriate exchange rate is that prevailing at the date of contract repudiation rather than at judgment or at some later arbitrary date.