George Riva v The National Social Security Authority

NSSA employed Riva as an assistant general manager. NSSA suspended Riva for alleged misconduct and initiated disciplinary proceedings. A disciplinary committee heard evidence against Riva but had not yet delivered its decision when Riva sent a letter stating 'I wish to give three months notice to terminate my employment with NSSA as per my contract.' Ten days later, on 22 February 2001, Riva wrote to NSSA retracting his resignation. On the same day, NSSA replied on a 'without prejudice' basis accepting his resignation with immediate effect and offering payment in lieu of notice. Riva rejected NSSA's conditions as violating his contract and reiterated that he had retracted his resignation. On 29 March 2001, NSSA gave Riva until 13 April 2001 to accept their conditions, failing which the offer would be withdrawn and the disciplinary committee's determination would be served. Riva brought an application seeking a declaration that his letter of resignation be of no legal effect and that he remained employed by NSSA.

• Whether a letter of resignation constitutes a unilateral act that cannot be withdrawn without the employer's consent
• Whether Riva's letter was a formal resignation or merely an offer to resign
• Whether NSSA's response constituted acceptance of the resignation or a counter-offer
• Whether NSSA had consented to the withdrawal of Riva's resignation through subsequent correspondence and conduct

The application was dismissed with costs.

A letter of resignation from employment is a unilateral act that does not require acceptance by the employer and cannot be withdrawn once communicated except with the employer's consent. The use of the phrase 'I wish to give notice' does not convert a resignation into a mere offer when the letter as a whole expresses a clear statement of intention to resign, invokes contractual rights to resign, and claims benefits due on resignation. Correspondence marked 'without prejudice' cannot form the basis for legal claims regarding the validity or withdrawal of resignation. There is a distinction between the fact of resignation itself and the terms on which an employee departs - parties may negotiate the latter without affecting the validity of the former.

The court stated that it was not necessary to decide whether the principle in the Rustenburg case is too narrowly expressed to deal with all cases involving resignation, or whether factors such as the manner in which resignation is framed and subsequent behavior of parties could qualify the principle in certain circumstances. The court acknowledged Riva's submission that the Rustenburg principle might be subject to distinctions and exceptions based on the facts of a case, but found it unnecessary to determine this issue as the Rustenburg principle clearly applied to the present case.

This case confirms and applies in Zimbabwean law the principle that resignation from employment is a unilateral act that, once communicated, cannot be withdrawn without the employer's consent. It provides guidance on distinguishing between a formal resignation and an offer to resign, and clarifies that 'without prejudice' correspondence cannot establish legal rights. The case also demonstrates the distinction between the fact of resignation and negotiations over the terms of departure.