Kitwe City Council v Nkaishe & 52 Others (Appeal 91 of 2004) [2004] ZMSC 16 (7 December 2004)
The Collective Agreement does not restrict repatriation allowances to employees recruited from outside Kitwe; all retiring employees are entitled to such allowances.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] ZMSC 16
- Parties
- Appellant: Kitwe City Council; Respondent: M. Nkaishe and 52 Others
- Court
- Supreme Court of Zambia
- Jurisdiction
- Zambia
- Case Number
- Appeal 91 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Repatriation Allowance, Collective Agreement, Retirement Benefits
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Kitwe City Council
Appellant
M. Nkaishe and 52 Others
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondents were entitled to repatriation allowances upon retirement or retrenchment
Ratio Decidendi
The Collective Agreement does not restrict repatriation allowances to employees recruited from outside Kitwe; all retiring employees are entitled to such allowances.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ZAMBIA (cid:9) HOLDEN AT NDOLA APPEAL NO. 91/2004 BETWEEN: KITWE CITY COUNCIL (cid:9) APPELLANT AND M. NKAISHE AND 52 OTHERS (cid:9) RESPONDENT CORAM: LEWANIKA DCJ., MAMBILIMA, SILOMBA JJS On th day of September and 7th December, 2004 For the Appellant: (cid:9) For the Respondent: (cid:9) V. MICHELO, Legal Counsel W. M. FORREST of Forrest, Price & Co. JUDGMENT LEWANIKA DCJ, delivered the judgment of the court. When we heard this appeal on 7th September, 2004 we dismissed it and said we would give our reasons later and we now do so. The evidence on record is that the Respondents were employees of the Appellant who were retired or retrenched from employment. It was not in dispute that these Respondents were unionized workers whose conditions of service were governed by a Collective Agreement between the Local Government Association of Zambia and the Zambia United Local Authorities Workers Union. The issue before the learned trial Judge in the court below was whether or not the Respondents were entitled to repatriation allowances upon being retired from employment. The case for the Appellant was that the Respondents were not entitled to repatriation allowances because they were locally recruited within Kitwe. The learned trial Judge found that on the evidence before him the Respondents were entitled to repatriation allowances irrespective of their place of recruitment, hence this appeal. We note from Clause 6.2.3 of the Collective Agreement on page 42 of the record that repatriation is provided for as follows:- 6.2.3. "REPATRIATION (a) an employee retiring or being medically discharged shall be repatriated to any place in Zambia or up the border if the employee is a non Zambian." This is the provision that provided for repatriation allowances and spells out quite clearly what an employee is entitled to on retirement. It makes no reference to repatriation allowances being restricted to only those employees recruited from outside Kitwe. This appeal is totally devoid of merit and it is for this reason that we dismissed it. D. M. LEWANIKA DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE I. M. C. Mambilima (cid:9) SUPREME COURT JUDGE (cid:9) S. S. Silomba SUPREME COURT JUDGE 2