CFI Holdings Limited v Peggy Rambanepasi & Others

The first to third respondents were employed by the appellant as Managing Director CFI Holdings Retail, Managing Director Victoria Foods and Chief Operating Officer CFI Holdings Limited respectively. Their contracts of employment were terminated on notice by identical letters dated 26 January 2016, giving them three months' written notice. They were told not to serve the notice period and to immediately leave the premises. The respondents approached a Labour Officer claiming unfair dismissal, reinstatement and payment of arrear salaries and benefits. The Labour Officer (fourth respondent) found that the termination was unfair as it did not comply with the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. The Labour Officer approached the Labour Court for confirmation of the draft ruling in terms of s 93(5) of the Labour Act as amended by Act 5 of 2015. The Labour Court confirmed the draft ruling and ordered reinstatement without loss of salary and benefits, or payment of damages in lieu thereof.

• Whether the appellant complied with the requirements for termination on notice as set out in section 12(4a) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] as amended by Act 5 of 2015
• Whether there was mutual agreement between the parties to terminate the employment contracts
• Whether the termination of the respondents' employment was lawful

The appeal was dismissed with costs. The Labour Court's judgment confirming the Labour Officer's draft ruling was upheld, meaning the respondents' termination was unlawful and they were entitled to reinstatement without loss of salary and benefits, or damages in lieu thereof.

Termination of employment on notice is only lawful if the employer complies with the mandatory requirements of section 12(4a) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] as amended by Act 5 of 2015. An employer cannot rely on section 12(4b) to pay compensation for loss of employment unless it has first satisfied the conditions in section 12(4a), namely: (a) termination in terms of an employment code or model code; or (b) mutual written agreement to terminate; or (c) engagement for a fixed duration or specific service; or (d) retrenchment in accordance with s 12C. Failure to comply with these mandatory provisions renders the termination unlawful, regardless of whether notice was given or compensation offered.

The Court observed that the intention of the Legislature in enacting the 2015 amendment was to ensure that an employee whose contract is terminated on notice did not walk away empty-handed. The Court also noted that the language of statutory provisions must be given its grammatical and ordinary meaning unless this would lead to absurdity or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument, citing Chihava & Ors v The Provincial Magistrate Francis Mapfumo N.O. & Anor 2015 (2) ZLR 31 (CC). The Court commented that it was "as clear as daylight" that the appellant had overlooked the requirement to comply with s 12(4a) before seeking to perform in terms of s 12(4b).

This case is significant in Zimbabwean labour law as it clarifies the mandatory requirements for termination of employment on notice following the Labour Amendment Act No. 5 of 2015, which was enacted in response to the Don Nyamande v Zuva Petroleum SC43/15 judgment. It establishes that employers cannot simply terminate employment on notice by paying a retrenchment package; they must first comply with the specific conditions set out in s 12(4a) of the Labour Act. The judgment emphasizes strict compliance with statutory provisions protecting employees from arbitrary termination and ensures that termination on notice is only lawful when accompanied by proper procedural safeguards such as a registered code of conduct, a model code, or mutual written agreement.