Phiri v Workers Compensation Control Board (SCZ 2 of 2003) [2003] ZMSC 9 (3 March 2003)

Phiri v Workers Compensation Control Board (SCZ 2 of 2003) [2003] ZMSC 9 (3 March 2003)

The appellant was not declared redundant; the transfer to the new Board was lateral and in the same capacity, constituting continuous employment. The refusal to accept the transfer amounted to resignation, not redundancy. The appellant was only entitled to benefits on resignation, not a redundancy package.

Citation
[2003] ZMSC 9
Parties
Appellant: Anthony Khetani Phiri; Respondent: Workers Compensation Control Board
Court
Supreme Court of Zambia
Jurisdiction
Zambia
Judgment Date
3 March 2003
Case Number
SCZ 2 of 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Redundancy, Separation Package, Continuous Employment, Transfer of Employees, Resignation
Source Language
English
Employment Law Redundancy Separation Package Continuous Employment Transfer of Employees Resignation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Khetani Phiri

Appellant

Workers Compensation Control Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was entitled to a redundancy package upon the repeal of the Workers Compensation Act and creation of a new Board
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's employment was terminated by redundancy or resignation
  3. 3 Whether the transfer to the new Board constituted a break in employment

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was not declared redundant; the transfer to the new Board was lateral and in the same capacity, constituting continuous employment. The refusal to accept the transfer amounted to resignation, not redundancy. The appellant was only entitled to benefits on resignation, not a redundancy package.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Costs to the respondent to be taxed in default of agreement