Stanwell J Chodokufa v The National Employment Council for the Catering Industry

The respondent (NIC) employed the applicant (Chodokufa) as its chief accountant. In August 2000, the NIC resolved to increase salaries of management and employees by 10% and 15% respectively, but excluded Chodokufa due to unsatisfactory performance. On 22 September 2000, the secretary general advised Chodokufa to go on paid leave of absence pending an investigation by the Finance Committee into the Accounts Department's activities. In November 2000, Chodokufa was advised he would not receive the annual bonus. On 21 February 2001, the secretary general advised Chodokufa that his services were to be terminated and that he was suspended without pay and benefits effective 1 March, pending an application to the Ministry of Labour, Manpower and Social Welfare for his dismissal. The application to the Ministry was made at or shortly after the suspension notice.

• Whether the secretary general had the authority to suspend Chodokufa
• Whether Chodokufa was already on suspension when the February 2001 suspension was imposed
• Whether the suspension was unlawful due to delay in submitting the dismissal application to the Ministry
• Whether paid leave of absence constitutes suspension in law
• Whether the NIC was entitled to return of company benefits (motor vehicle and cell phone)

The application was dismissed. Chodokufa was directed to return forthwith to the NIC the Mazda 323 motor vehicle (registration number 695 697 R) and the cell phone that he received as part of his employment benefits. Chodokufa was ordered to pay the costs of the application on the ordinary scale.

Paid leave of absence and suspension are entirely separate and different legal concepts with different legal consequences. An employee who is on paid leave of absence is not in law on suspension. Therefore, an employee on paid leave can subsequently be lawfully suspended, and such suspension does not constitute a second or unlawful suspension. An employer's authorized representative (in this case, the secretary general) may suspend an employee if duly authorized by the employer body to do so.

The court observed that while the application was without merit, this alone does not automatically warrant an award of costs on the higher scale. The court noted that such an award is discretionary and should consider factors such as the complexity of the matter and the amount of court time consumed. In this case, the matter was dealt with simply and little court time was wasted, which weighed against making a special costs order despite the lack of merit in the application.

This case establishes an important distinction in Zimbabwean labour law between paid leave of absence and suspension, clarifying that these are separate legal concepts with different consequences. The case also addresses procedural requirements for employer authority to suspend employees and the application of Labour Relations Act provisions regarding the timing of dismissal applications following suspension. The judgment provides guidance on when costs on a higher scale may be appropriate in labour disputes.