Dhege v Bell Medical Centre (HC 2626 of 2002) [2004] ZWBHC 50 (31 March 2004)

Dhege v Bell Medical Centre (HC 2626 of 2002) [2004] ZWBHC 50 (31 March 2004)

The applicant was not entitled to compel the sale of the vehicle because the relevant policy made the sale discretionary, not mandatory, and the applicant had accepted new terms of employment. The respondent did not breach section 16 of the Labour Relations Act, and the privilege to purchase the vehicle did not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] ZWBHC 50
Parties
Applicant: Dr C Dhege; Respondent: Bell Medical Centre
Court
Bulawayo High Court
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Judgment Date
31 March 2004
Case Number
HC 2626 of 2002
Procedural Posture
Opposed Application and Counter Application / Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed; counter application granted
Legal Topics
Transfer of Undertaking, Employment Benefits, Interpretation of Employment Contracts, Discretionary Employment Privileges
Source Language
english
Employment Law Contract Law Transfer of Undertaking Employment Benefits Interpretation of Employment Contracts Discretionary Employment Privileges

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr C Dhege

Applicant

Bell Medical Centre

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Opposed Application and Counter Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was entitled to purchase the company vehicle after transfer of employment under section 16 of the Labour Relations Act
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was obliged to sell the vehicle to the applicant under ZISCO Steel policy 802
  3. 3 Whether the new contract lawfully altered the applicant's employment benefits

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was not entitled to compel the sale of the vehicle because the relevant policy made the sale discretionary, not mandatory, and the applicant had accepted new terms of employment. The respondent did not breach section 16 of the Labour Relations Act, and the privilege to purchase the vehicle did not amount to a contractual right.

Court Disposition

application dismissed; counter application granted

Orders

  • Applicant's application is dismissed with costs.
  • Respondent's counter application for return of the vehicle Peugeot 405 registration number 640-427Q is granted with costs.