Konneck Sagomba & 38 Ors v Public Service Commission and Others

The applicants were 39 employees who joined the Central Mechanical Equipment Department (CMED) at various times as qualified motor mechanics and other workers. The principal applicant joined on 3 January 1999. Although no written contracts were initially signed, they received monthly salaries that fluctuated. In February 2000, they were called to sign 3-month contract forms without knowing their contents. Their employment was terminated on 29 September 2000 with the explanation that there was no more work. The applicants were paid lump sums upon termination (e.g., $7,500 for the principal applicant). Although a daily attendance register existed, it was for recording attendance rather than computing daily wages. The applicants contended they were monthly paid employees entitled to one month's notice, while the respondents maintained they were daily paid employees entitled only to 24 hours notice or a day's pay in lieu.

• Whether the applicants were monthly paid or daily paid employees under the Government Employees (Ungraded) Rules (Terms of Appointment and Conditions of Service) Public Service Circular No. 3 of 1992
• What notice period the applicants were entitled to upon termination of employment
• Whether the termination violated the principles of natural justice and the audi alteram partem rule
• Whether the applicants had a legitimate expectation to be heard before termination
• Whether section 19(8) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe was violated

1. The late noting of review was condoned. 2. The applicants were to be paid one calendar month's wages each in lieu of the one month's notice they were entitled to upon termination of employment on 29 September 2000, together with interest at the legal rate. 3. The applicants were to be paid for all leave days and overtime not paid or compensated, calculated in terms of Public Service Circular No. 3 of 1992. 4. The third respondent was to avail to the applicants all necessary details relating to tax deductions during their engagement. 5. The first and second respondents were to pay the costs of the application.

The binding legal principle established is that the classification of employees as daily paid or monthly paid must be determined by examining the actual method of wage calculation and payment, not merely by the existence of attendance records. Where employees receive monthly payments without daily wage calculations and receive termination payments substantially exceeding a day's wages, they are monthly paid employees entitled to one month's notice or pay in lieu. Furthermore, when employees are engaged for specific projects, their legitimate expectation upon project completion is limited to receiving proper notice or payment in lieu; the audi alteram partem rule does not require consultation about the fact of project completion itself, though it would apply to terminations for other reasons.

The court made obiter observations declining to extensively discuss the development of the audi alteram partem rule and the legitimate expectation principle in the jurisdiction, noting that such discussion was unnecessary for the determination of the matter and that the court lacked the benefit of opposing submissions on these points. The judge noted that counsel 'waxed lyrical' about these developments but found it unnecessary to delve into the debate given the specific circumstances of the case.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean labour and public service law as it establishes principles for distinguishing between daily paid and monthly paid employees based on actual payment practices rather than merely the existence of attendance registers. It clarifies the extent of procedural fairness required when terminating fixed-term or project-based employment, limiting the application of audi alteram partem to circumstances where termination is discretionary rather than arising from the genuine completion of a project. The case also addresses the legitimate expectations of ungraded government employees and their entitlements under Public Service regulations.