Redstar Wholesalers v Edmore Mabika

The respondent was unlawfully dismissed from employment with the appellant on 12 February 1999. On 9 July 1999, the Local Joint Committee for the National Employment Council for the Commercial Sectors ordered his reinstatement with full salary and benefits. This was confirmed by the Negotiating Committee and the Labour Relations Tribunal (Labour Court). The parties failed to reach agreement on quantum of damages, and the Labour Court was approached for quantification. The Labour Court awarded back pay from February 1999 to 7 January 2003, overtime, leave, sugar benefit, and 24 months' salary as damages at 2003 rates. The respondent had testified that he had obtained two job offers by June/July 2000, but they were withdrawn when prospective employers discovered he had a pending case. The sugar benefit had only been introduced in October 2002.

• What is the correct date to which back-pay should be calculated when an employee is ordered to be reinstated?
• What is the proper basis for calculating damages for wrongful dismissal?
• What evidence is required to determine the quantum of damages for loss of employment?
• What is the appropriate salary rate to use when calculating damages?
• Can an employee claim benefits that were introduced after the date of dismissal or reinstatement order?

The appeal was allowed with costs. The order of the Labour Court was set aside and substituted with an order that the appellant pay the respondent: (a) back-pay and benefits at the operative scale for the period 12 February 1999 to 9 July 1999; (b) overtime of 463 hours at the then applicable rate; (c) cash in lieu of leave; (d) twelve months salary from 9 July 1999 as damages for loss of employment; (e) interest at the prescribed rate; with prescribed statutory deductions to be taken into account.

The binding legal principles are: (1) Back-pay following a reinstatement order is payable only to the date on which the order of reinstatement is made, not to the date of any subsequent appeal or hearing. (2) Damages for wrongful dismissal must be calculated on the basis of evidence showing the length of time it would reasonably take the dismissed employee to find alternative employment from the date of dismissal. (3) Courts cannot make arbitrary awards of damages based on what they consider 'meets the justice of the case' without proper evidentiary foundation; they must call evidence if necessary under their statutory powers. (4) Damages should be calculated at the salary rate pertaining at the date of the reinstatement order, not at some later date. (5) Benefits introduced after the date of dismissal or reinstatement order that did not form part of the employee's contract of employment cannot be claimed as part of compensation.

The Court observed that if parties have led insufficient evidence to enable the court to arrive at an informed conclusion on damages, this does not absolve the court from its duty to utilize its powers in terms of section 89(2)(a)(i) of the Labour Act by calling evidence in order to resolve the issue. The Court also commented that the Labour Court's approach of selecting a figure because it 'meets the justice of the case' was fundamentally wrong, noting that 'the Court is not entitled to pluck a figure out of a hat.'

This case establishes important principles in Zimbabwean labour law regarding the calculation of damages and back-pay following unlawful dismissal and reinstatement orders. It clarifies that courts cannot make arbitrary awards of damages without proper evidentiary foundation, and sets clear parameters for calculating both the period and rate applicable to back-pay and damages awards. The case reinforces that damages for wrongful dismissal must be based on evidence of how long it would reasonably take to find alternative employment, and that benefits introduced after dismissal or reinstatement orders cannot form part of compensation claims.