Divarson & 23 Others v Makandi Tea and Coffee Estate (IRC 446 of 2002 ) (446 of 2002) [2006] MWIRC 109 (11 August 2006);




MATTER NO. IRC 446 OF 2002


DIVARSON & 23 OTHERS …………………………………………… APPLICANT



Applicants; Present
Mthethiwa; Farm Manager for the Respondent
Chinkudzu; Official Interpreter


Dismissal-Natural justice-Employers must act with fairness-Must apply rules of natural justice as enshrined in the Constitution, sections 31 and 43-Each case to be assessed according to its merits-Procedure-Duty to act with lenience where an employee gives a good reason-Negotiation to have precedent over punishment- Punishment to fit offence.


The applicants were dismissed for abandoning work. They abandoned work after failing to agree with management on rate of wages. The applicants however defended themselves that they had been promised higher wages which were unilaterally reduced without proper consultation. They indeed abandoned work but the next morning they came back to the field to continue working and to negotiate for higher rates. The respondents did not want to talk; they proceeded to dismiss all 23 of them. The reason was refusal to follow company procedures, that is, to finish an assigned work within the prescribed time.

The respondent did not show court how this abandonment of work for a few hours affected operations. This abandonment of work was for a few hours and for a minor disagreement which could have been resolved through discussion. The applicants realized that they had acted with haste and hence they came back to resume work and try to negotiate. The respondent could not have any of it and proceeded to dismiss despite the fact that the applicants were genuinely acting under a genuine mistake on rates.

The court finds that the respondent acted unfairly. The decision was too severe for the offence and was arrived at without considering the plight of the applicants. The applicants were promised a rate and when it was reduced for a good reason according to the respondent, this should have been communicated to the applicants before unilaterally making a decision to reduce the rate for that particular field.

In all dismissal cases employers must act with fairness and must apply rules of natural justice as enshrined in the Constitution, sections 31 and 43. They must assess each case according to its merits and act with lenience where an employee gives a good reason for his action and offers to continue with work on negotiated terms.


The reason was not valid and according to section 58 of the Employment Act, this court must find that the termination was unfair on both substance and procedure. On procedure because the respondent did not hear the applicants’ side and defence and if they heard them, they did not take their defence and explanation into consideration when making the decision to dismiss.


In any case where an employee succeeds in a dismissal case, the court makes an award in accordance with section 63 of the Employment Act. The matter shall be set down on a date to be fixed to assess an appropriate remedy and both parties shall be required to attend. Evidence of wages, any allowances and benefits received during employment shall be required as evidence on assessment.

Any aggrieved by this decision is at liberty to appeal to the High Court within 30 days of this judgment.

Pronounced this 11th day of August 2006 at Blantyre.

Rachel Zibelu Banda