Nobanda v Scotfin Limited (HC 1679 of 2001) [2002] ZWBHC 6 (13 February 2002)
The applicant was not entitled to purchase the vehicle as only managerial staff with vehicles as a contractual benefit could do so; non-managerial staff vehicles were classified as pool vehicles and not subject to purchase by such staff.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2002] ZWBHC 6
- Parties
- Applicant: Sidney Nobanda; Respondent: Scotfin Limited
- Court
- Bulawayo High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Zimbabwe
- Case Number
- HC 1679 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Opposed Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Retrenchment, Employee Benefits, Company Property, Contract Interpretation
- 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
Sidney Nobanda
Applicant
Scotfin Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Opposed Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant, a retrenched non-managerial employee, was entitled to purchase a company vehicle under the works council agreement
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant was not entitled to purchase the vehicle as only managerial staff with vehicles as a contractual benefit could do so; non-managerial staff vehicles were classified as pool vehicles and not subject to purchase by such staff.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- Applicant to pay costs for the hearing of 18 January 2002
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Judgment No. HB 6/2002 Case No. HC 1679/2001 SIDNEY NOBANDA versus SCOTFIN LIMITED IN THE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE KAMOCHA J BULAWAYO 18 JANUARY & 14 FEBRUARY 2002 J. Sibanda for the applicant R. Y. Phillips for the respondent Opposed Application KAMOCHA J: The applicant was a former employee of Scotfin Limited “the respondent”. He worked as a Loss Control Officer at its Bulawayo office. During the year 2000, the respondent resolved to retrench 124 non- managerial employees country wide in a down sizing exercise. The applicant was one of those affected by the exercise. During his employment with the respondent, the applicant had use of a motor vehicle. He did so for a period of six years and was even taxed for the use of the vehicle. The applicant enjoyed unlimited use of the vehicle, taking it home over weekends and public holidays. He also did personal errands with it. These circumstances led the applicant to believe that he was entitled to purchase the vehicle in terms of the memorandum of agreement of the works council negotiating committee. Item 7 thereof which deals with the purchase of company vehicles says this:- “Company vehicles To be purchased at book value or 25% of market value whichever is lower (average of 3 quotations) The bank reserves the right to identify garages to give quotations”. The respondent on the other hand contended that the applicant was not entitled -2- 6/02 to purchase the vehicle under the agreement. It explained that at all given times when the retrenchment package was discussed, it was made clear that only managerial staff who were allocated vehicles as personal issue and to whom the vehicle constituted a benefit, in terms of each manager’s individual terms of contract of employment, were allowed as part of the package to purchase the motor vehicle issued to them. All vehicles driven by non-managerial staff were classified as bank pool vehicles which staff used as and when it was necessary for business purposes, to use them. In the case of staff who normally worked outside the office like loss controllers and investigators, such employees had been given permission for each, to use a particular vehicle and to take the vehicle home overnight, for practical purposes, since sometimes they had to go home very late. The vehicles remained pool vehicles, liable to recovery or re-allocation at any time. Since there was limited private use from work to home and back, that use had to be taxed. The above explanation was proffered to the applicant by letter dated 23 April 2001 before he instituted these proceedings. It should have been quite clear to him that there were serious disputes of fact which could not be resolved on the papers without going to trial. It should also have been clear to him that there was no leeway for the robust and common sense approach. When this was pointed out to Mr Sibanda when he was arguing the matter he made a concession and requested that thFINDER DAT" fGí2(cid:2) (cid:20)(cid:15) DESKTOP " öFí2 RESOURCEFRK(cid:18) öFí2(cid:3) HB005-02DOC (cid:27)J¹,(cid:5) \ HB006-02DOC ØQ¸,3 r HB007-02DOC - G¸,m f HB008-02DOC Ú\¿, ´ HB004-02DOC øF¸,ú ~ HB010- 02DOC ¥h¸,9(cid:1) † HB011-02DOC 8c¿,|(cid:1) x HB012-02DOC …TÒ,¹ ´ HB013-02DOC ³J¹,(cid:19)(cid:2) ì HB015-02DOC ÌD¸,‰ d HB016-02DOC tG¸,»(cid:2) l HB014-02DOC öFí2 RESOURCEFRK(cid:18) öFí2(cid:3) HB005-02DOC (cid:27)J¹,(cid:5) \ HB006-02DOC ØQ¸,3 r HB007-02DOC - G¸,m f HB008-02DOC Ú\¿, ´ HB004-02DOC øF¸,ú ~ HB010- 02DOC ¥h¸,9(cid:1) † HB011-02DOC 8c¿,|(cid:1) x HB012-02DOC …TÒ,¹ ´ HB013-02DOC ³J¹,(cid:19)(cid:2) ì HB015-02DOC ÌD¸,‰ d HB016-02DOC tG¸,»(cid:2) l HB014-02DOC öFí2 RESOURCEFRK(cid:18) öFí2(cid:3) HB005-02DOC (cid:27)J¹,(cid:5) \ HB006-02DOC ØQ¸,3 r HB007-02DOC - G¸,m f HB008-02DOC Ú\¿, ´ HB004-02DOC øF¸,ú ~ HB010- 02DOC ¥h¸,9(cid:1) † HB011-02DOC 8c¿,|(cid:1) x HB012-02DOC …TÒ,¹ ´ HB013-02DOC ³J¹,(cid:19)(cid:2) ì HB015-02DOC ÌD¸,‰ d HB016-02DOC tG¸,»(cid:2) l HB014-02DOC ØQ¸,3 r HB007-02DOC -G¸,m f HB008-02DOC Ú\¿, ´ HB004-02DOC øF¸,ú ~ HB010-02DOC ¥h¸,9(cid:1) † HB011-02DOC 8c¿,|(cid:1) x HB012-02DOC …TÒ,¹ ´ HB013-02DOC ³J¹,(cid:19)(cid:2) ì HB015-02DOC ÌD¸,‰ d HB016-02DOC tG¸,»(cid:2) l HB014-02DOC ØQ¸,3 r HB007-02DOC -G¸,m f HB008-02DOC Ú\¿, ´ HB004-02DOC øF¸,ú ~ HB010-02DOC ¥h¸,9(cid:1) † HB011-02DOC 8c¿,|(cid:1) x HB012-02DOC …TÒ,¹ ´ HB013-02DOC ³J¹,(cid:19)(cid:2) ì HB015-02DOC ÌD¸,‰ d HB016-02DOC tG¸,»(cid:2) l HB014-02DOC ØQ¸,3 r HB007-02DOC -G¸,m f HB008-02DOC Ú\¿, ´ HB004-02DOC øF¸,ú ~ HB010-02DOC ¥h¸,9(cid:1) † HB011-02DOC 8c¿,|(cid:1) x HB012-02DOC …TÒ,¹ ´ HB013-02DOC ³J¹,(cid:19)(cid:2) ì HB015-02DOC ÌD¸,‰ d HB016-02DOC tG¸,»(cid:2) l HB014-02DOC 007-02DOC -G¸,m f HB008-02DOC Ú\¿, ´ HB004-02DOC øF¸,ú ~ HB010-02DOC ¥h¸,9(cid:1) † HB011-02DOC 8c¿,|(cid:1) x HB012-02DOC …TÒ,¹ ´ HB013-02DOC ³J¹,(cid:19)(cid:2) ì HB015-02DOC ÌD¸,‰ d HB016-02DOC tG¸,»(cid:2) l HB014-02DOC ji¸,ñ(cid:2) b(cid:1) HB018-02DOC =J¸,£(cid:3) 8 January 2002 for -G¸,m f HB008-02DOC Ú\¿, ´ HB004-02DOC øF¸,ú ~ HB010-02DOC ¥h¸,9(cid:1) † HB011-02DOC 8c¿,|(cid:1) x HB012-02DOC …TÒ,¹ ´ HB013-02DOC ³J¹,(cid:19)(cid:2) ì HB015-02DOC ÌD¸,‰ d HB016-02DOC tG¸,»(cid:2) l HB014-02DOC ji¸,ñ(cid:2) b(cid:1) HB018-02DOC =J¸,£(cid:3) 8 January 2002 for -G¸,m f HB008-02DOC Ú\¿, ´ HB004-02DOC øF¸,ú ~ HB010-02DOC ¥h¸,9(cid:1) † HB011-02DOC 8c¿,|(cid:1) x HB012-02DOC …TÒ,¹ ´ HB013-02DOC ³J¹,(cid:19)(cid:2) ì HB015-02DOC ÌD¸,‰ d HB016-02DOC tG¸,»(cid:2) l HB014-02DOC ji¸,ñ(cid:2) b(cid:1) HB018-02DOC =J¸,£(cid:3) 8 January 2002 for B008-02DOC Ú\¿, ´ HB004-02DOC øF¸,ú ~ HB010-02DOC ¥h¸,9(cid:1) † HB011-02DOC 8c¿,|(cid:1) x HB012-02DOC …TÒ,¹ ´ HB013-02DOC ³J¹,(cid:19)(cid:2) ì HB015-02DOC ÌD¸,‰ d HB016-02DOC tG¸,»(cid:2) l HB014-02DOC 008-02DOC Ú\¿, ´ HB004-02DOC øF¸,ú ~ HB010-02DOC ¥h¸,9(cid:1) † HB011-02DOC 8c¿,|(cid:1) x HB012-02DOC …TÒ,¹ ´ HB013-02DOC ³J¹,(cid:19)(cid:2) ì HB015-02DOC ÌD¸,‰ d HB016-02DOC tG¸,»(cid:2) l HB014-02DOC øF¸,ú ~ HB010-02DOC ¥h¸,9(cid:1) † HB011-02DOC 8c¿,|(cid:1) x HB012-02DOC …TÒ,¹ ´ HB013-02DOC ³J¹,(cid:19)(cid:2) ì HB015-02DOC ÌD¸,‰ d HB016-02DOC tG¸,»(cid:2) l HB014-02DOC ji¸,ñ(cid:2) b(cid:1) HB018-02DOC =J¸,£(cid:3) 8 January 2002 for 02DOC ³J¹,(cid:19)(cid:2) ì HB015-02DOC ÌD¸,‰ d HB016-02DOC tG¸,»(cid:2) l HB014-02DOC ji¸,ñ(cid:2) b(cid:1) HB018-02DOC =J¸,£(cid:3) 8 January 2002 for having cited it wrongly. having cited it wrongly. having cited it wrongly. having cited it wrongly. having cited it wrongly. ji¸,ñ(cid:2) b(cid:1) HB018-02DOC =J¸,£(cid:3) 8 January 2002 for having cited it wrongly. (5) The applicant shall pay costs for the hearing of 18 January 2002. Job Sibanda & Associates applicant’s legal practitioners Gill, Godlonton & Gerrans respondent’s legal practitioners