Mlaula Mhango v Northrise University Registered Trustees (2024/HN/IR/79) [2025] ZMHC 78 (30 September 2025)

::. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR ZAMBIA AT THE DISTRICT REGISTRY HOLDEN AT NDOLA (Industrial Relations Division) 2024/HN/IR/79 BETWEEN: MLAULA MHANGO AND 30 Sfp 2025 ~ SEAL 1 COMPLAINANT NORTHRISE UNIVERSITYREGISTERED TRUSTEES RESPONDENT Before the Honourable Mr. Justice Davies C. Mumba in Chambers on the 30th day of September, 2025. For the Complainant: Mr. D. S. Libati, Messrs D. S. Libati Legal Practitioners. For the Respondent: Ms. J. Pikiti, Messrs J. B. Sakala and Company. JUDGMENT Cases referred to: 1. Elizabeth Sokoni Mwenya v CFB Medical Centre Limited, SCZ Appeal No. 009 of 2015 . 2. Stamp Duty Commissioner v African Farming Equipment Company Limited (1969) Z. R. 32. 3. Redrilza Limited v Abuid Nkazi and Others, SCZ Judgment No. 7 of 2011. 4. Eston Banda and another v The Attorney-General, Appeal No. 42 of 2016. 5. Josephat Lupemba v First Quantum Mining Operations Limited, Appeal No. 20 of 2017. 6. Chilanga Cement Pk v Kasote Singogo (2009) Z. R. 122 (S. C). : J2 7. Barclays Bank of Zambia Pk v Weston Luwi and Suzyo Ngulube, SCZ Appeal No. 7 of 2012. 8. Dennis Chansa v Barclays Bank Zambia PLC, Appeal No.111/2011. 9. Kitwe City Council v William Ng'uni (2005) Z. R. 5 7 (SC). Legislation referred to: 1. The Employment Code Act No.3 of 2019. 2. The Industrial Relations Court Rules, Chapter 269 of the Laws of Zambia. Other works referred to: 1. Halsbury's Laws of England, Volume 9, 4 th Edition. 2. Winnie Sithole Mwenda and Chanda Chungu: A Comprehensive Guide to Employment Law in Zambia: UNZA Press. Lusaka, 2021. 1.0. INTRODUCTION 1.1. By notice of complaint supported by an affidavit filed into court on 3rd December, 2024, the complainant commenced this action against the respondent seeking leave pay for a total of 48 days over the contract period in the sum of K34,107 .69; payment for 20 accrued leave days in the sum of Kl4,2 l l.53; one month's pay in lieu of the termination notice in the sum of Kl8,475 .00; gratuity at the rate provided for in the Employment Code Act in the sum of K2 21,700.00; damages for unfair and wrongful dismissal, damages for inconvenience, emotional and mental distress; an order compelling the respondent to provide the complainant with an employment reference J3 confirming the good work she did for the respondent; interests on all the amounts to be found owing; any other relief the court may deem fit; and costs. 1.2. The respondent opposed all the complainant's claims and, in doing so, filed into court an answer and an affidavit in opposition on 15 th January, 2025 sworn to by Sandra Kalumbi Awuku, Human Resource Manager in the respondent's university. The respondent urged the court to dismiss the complainant's claims. 1.3. It was the respondent's submission that the complainant's initial contracts of employment were for fixed terms ending on 25 th July, 2022 and 25 th July, 2024. 1.4. That the respondent initiated the process of renewing the complainant's contract of employment for the period commencing on 26 th July, 2024. However, the complainant did not sign and handover the new contract to the respondent and as such, she could not claim benefits under a contract to which she was not party. 1. 5. On 24th March, 202 5, the complainant filed into court an affidavit in reply to the respondent's affidavit in opposition. 2 .0. THE COMPLAINANT'S CASE = J4 2 .1. The complainant, through her affidavits and at trial, testified that she was employed by the respondent on 26th July, 2021 as an Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Lecturer on a fixed term contract for a period of one year. After the said contract expired, it was renewed for a period of two years . The complainant produced the aforesaid contracts of employment, "MM2b" and "MM2a," respectively, exhibited to the affidavit in support of the notice of complaint. 2.2. She testified that under the second contract, "MM2a" her salary was increased by K2 50.00. After a discussion with her colleagues whose contracts were renewed at the same time as her contract, she discovered that two of them were offered increments which were more than her increment. That one of them who was also an ICT Lecturer was given an increment of K800.00 while another one who was a Law Lecturer was given an increment of Kl,000.00. Armed with immediate that information, she went to see her supervisor, Mr. Musonda to inquire if the respondent had a salary scale which guided the remunerations in terms of salaries for Lecturers in different faculties. When he asked her why she was inquiring, she mentioned to him that she was given an increment of K2 50.00 and asked him if there was anything she could do to be given more than K2 50.00. JS Mr. Musonda advised her that increments depended on the way an individual negotiated with management, and that he had no say in what his team members used to be paid. He further told her that from his experience, management rewarded loyalty. 2.3 . After she left Mr. Musonda's office, she signed her new contract, "MM2a" and continued working for the respondent. 2.4. When the two year fixed term contract of employment, "MM2a" expired after two years, she was offered another contract, "MM1" exhibited to the affidavit in support of the notice of complaint which was for another period of two years with effect from 26 th July, 2024. Three weeks before the commencement of the new contract, the Humari Resource Manager, Mrs Awuku had emailed her to inquire whether she was going to renew her contract and she responded in the affirmative. However, the contract was only given to her on 10th August, 2024. That between the time Mrs. Awuku asked her whether she would renew her contract and 10th August, 2024 when the new contract was finally given to her, she had continued to carry out her responsibilities as ICT Lecturer. That when she received the contract, "MM1" she went through the terms and conditions of service. She then took it to her supervisor, J6 Mr. Musonda before she could sign it and take it back to Mrs. Awuku. That she showed Mr. Musonda the details of her contract which included an increment of K700.00. That at the time, she was earning a salary of Kl2,000.00. That she asked him if he was happy with her work which he said he was and mentioned that he had seen a great improvement since she joined the respondent. 2.5. She explained that at that time, there was a team of 10 Lecturers in the ICT faculty and she was one of the three Lecturers that were teaching four courses while the rest taught two to three courses. That, however, she was the least paid of the three Lecturers and every new comer on the team was paid a higher salary than herself. That she asked Mr. Musonda what she needed to do to be paid as much as her colleagues. In response, he told her that he was not aware of anyone's salary on his team and that it was the first time someone had shown him their salary. That he advised her to go and request for·· an increment from the Human Resource department and mentioned that if needed, he was willing to offer support. 2.6. That two days later, she went to see the Human Resource Manager, Mrs. Awuku and requested for an increment. That Mrs. Awuku asked her why she went to her Manger to discuss the increment instead of going straight to her as J7 everything went through her office before anyone else. That she explained to Mrs. Awuku that the reason she went to her supervisor was because he was aware of her work load as she was part of his team and because she was wondering if the differences in salaries as team members reflected their contribution to the faculty. Then Mrs. Awuku told her that if she wanted an increment, she should put her request in writing and advised her to leave out details of other people's salaries. That Mrs. Awuku advised her to address the request only to her. 2. 7. On 7th November, 2024, she sent an email, "MMl" exhibited to her affidavit in reply to Mrs. Awuku requesting for a pay rise of K3,000.00 which would bring her salary to KlS,454.00. That in the email, she detailed her reasons for requesting for the pay rise. She mentioned that she had faithfully served the respondent for three years without a record of misconduct and to her full capacity, as required. She also mentioned that she had spent two years commuting from Kalulushi every day but relocated her family to a house near the respondent University on 1st September, 2024 which showed her commitment to continue serving the respondent. That she further mentioned the high cost of living and stated the prevailing salaries on the market for ICT Lecturers. Furthermore, she stated that an increment in her salary J8 would help her as she was looking forward to pursuing further studies which would also be beneficial to the respondent. 2.8. Mrs. Awuku responded to her via email two weeks later stating that her request had been heard and that she could go to her office to collect the adjustment of salary letter. That when she went to Mrs. Awuku's office, she was shown a letter stating that she had been offered an increment of Kl,500.00 to her basic salary. That she mentioned to Mrs. Awuku that an addition of Kl,500.00 to her basic pay would only amount to Kl,000.00 increment after tax. That that meant that that the difference between Kl,000.00 and the initial K750.00 increment which she was given upon renewal of her contract was K2 50.00. That in effect, she was offered an additional K2 50.00 increment out of K3,000.00 which she had requested for. That she asked Mrs. Awuku if the Kl,500.00 could atleast be added to her net pay instead of her basic pay to which Mrs. Awuku responded that she should put another request in writing to her. Mrs. Awuku then advised her to sign the letter of her salary adjustment in the meantime to accept the offer. That she asked Mrs. Awuku if she could wait for a response from her second request but Mrs. Awuku told her to write on the same salary adjustment letter that she had declined the offer. She then responded that she had not declined J9 the offer but she was just looking forward to her request being considered by management. Thereafter, she left Mrs. Awuku's office. 2.9. It was the complainant's testimony that during the time she was negotiating for her salary increment, she continued carrying out her responsibilities according to the terms and conditions of her contract. On 25th October, 2024, her salary was paid reflecting the initial K750.00 increment as shown by the pay slip, "MM5" exhibited to her affidavit in reply. After a few weeks, Mrs. Awuku emailed her asking her to return the signed contract but she had not heard back from her regarding her second request for an upward salary adjustment. 2.10. That on 5th November, 2024, Mr. Musonda asked her if she had prepared the examinations for the end of the semester. He asked her to submit the examinations which she did even though the deadline was only falling after one week. That no one else on the team was asked to submit the examinations before the deadline. 2.11. That on 7th November, 2024, the respondent wrote to her the letter, "MM2" exhibited to her affidavit in reply stating that her second request for an increment had been JlO declined and that she could separate with the respondent if she so wished. 2.12. On 8th November, 2024, the respondent wrote to her the letter, "MM3" exhibited to her affidavit in reply stating that the respondent had decided to terminate her contract for the reasons that: firstly, she had refused to sign her contract which was not true because she had not refused to sign. Secondly, that since she had refused the respondent's offer, her commitment was now compromised which was also not true because she had continued to serve the respondent, conducted herself well and there was no evidence to show that she had failed in her capacity as a Lecturer. Lastly, that she was working without a valid contract which she felt was unfair because no procedure seemed to have been followed during the negotiations for her salary increment to ensure that she was treated fairly. That she was allowed to continue carrying out her responsibilities from the beginning of the new contract on 26th July, 2024 until the last day of the semester on 8th November, 2024 when she received the letter of termination, 'MM4' exhibited to her affidavit in support of the notice of complaint. 2.13. The complainant contended that her employment was wrongfully and unfairly terminated as it was done Jll contrary to the provisions of her contract of employment, 'MM l ', abruptly and in a manner that was blatantly an d unfair to her. 2 .14. She stated that according to her contract, she should have been given a months' notice before the termination of her contract or the respondent should have paid her one month's salary in lieu of notice in the sum of KlS,475.00 upon the termination of her employment. She also contended that 'unsigned contract' was not stated in the contract as one of the reasons which could lead to the termination of her contract. That she was made to believe that she was working under an agreement with the respondent while negotiating the terms of her employment, that is, her new salary. 2.15. She stated that the respondent failed to accord her the courtesy of alerting her of the termination of her employment which was sent to her via email on 7th November, 2024 by the Human Resources Manager. That in addition, the respondent, in a rather inhumane fashion, proceeded to notify all its members of staff of the termination of her employment on 11 th November, 2024. 2 .16. Further, the complainant testified that when the respondent terminated her contract, it failed t o pay her J12 the sum of K34,107.69 for her leave pay for 48 days and the sum of Kl4,211.53 for 20 accrued leave days. That the respondent also failed to pay her gratuity at the rate provided in the Employment Code Act No. 3 of 2019 and her contract of employment, "MMl" in • the sum of K221,700.00. 2 .17. She contended that the respondent terminated her contract despite being aware, through the Human Resources Manager, that she, at a great cost, moved her family from Kalulushi to Ndola at a residence located just behind the respondent's university with a view to renting a house from September, 2024, as shown by the tenancy agreement, "MMS" in her affidavit in support of the notice of complaint. That, however, moving forward, she would not be able to fulfill the tenancy agreement on account of the respondent rendering her unemployed. That her entering into the tenancy agreement showed commitment to her employment contract that was to run for a period of 24 months from 26t h July, 2024. 2.18. The complainant further contended that at the time the respondent terminated her contract, it was aware that she had a family to support and she depended on the salary she earned as an employee of the respondent to provide for the family including, but not limited to the payment of J13 school fees for her four children as shown by the invoices and payments, "MM6" exhibited to her affidavit in support of the notice of complaint. 2.19. It was the complainant's evidence that despite summarily terminating her employment, the respondent ambiguously indicated to her that it would pay her all her dues on its next payroll but without stating how she would be paid. 2.20. The complainant stated that the respondent's actions caused her mental distress and financial stress as she was prepared to be in gainful employment for the next 21 months after the termination of her employment. That as a result, she suffered emotional stress and distress. That her mental health had been greatly affected which eventually caused her cognitive difficulty. 2.21. She urged the court to grant her the reliefs she was seeking. 2.22. During cross-examination, when referred to paragraph 12 of her affidavit in reply, the complainant stated that she had requested for an audience with management and the response was that she first had to speak with the Human Resource Manager and not the Chief Operating Officer J14 (C.0.0). When referred to paragraph 13 of the same affidavit, she stated that she had made her second request for a salary increment on 7th November, 2024 and Mrs. Awuku responded to her request on the same day. When referred to page 1 of the respondent's bundle of documents, the complainant confirmed that the respondent had sent reminders to her to fill in the forms for contract renewal. 2.23. When referred to paragraph 17 of her affidavit in reply, the complainant referred the court to her pay slips, "MM4" and "MMS". She explained that the pay slip "MM4" was for the month of November, 2024 which was for the last payment she received. That the pay slip, "MMS" was for month of October, 2024 which showed her basic pay of Kl 4,750.00. That in November, 2024, she was only paid K3 , 441.00 as her basic pay. That there was a difference of about Kl 1, 309.00. She also explained that her housing allowance as per the contract was K4,42 5.00 but in November, 2024 she was only paid Kl,032.50. That there was a difference of K3,392.00. That the balance of K40,290.96 underpayment was gratuity. 2.24. The complainant denied having been invited to any disciplinary hearing. When referred to the schedule at page 32 of the respondent's bundle of documents, the JlS complainant stated that not all Lecturers were taking upto four courses per day stream. When referred to paragraph 6 of her affidavit in reply, the complainant stated that she obtained information about the salaries of her colleagues when she discussed it with them. She stated that she was not aware of the salary range for her position prior to being offered the new contract. That she also became aware that new employees were joining at higher salary rates because she discussed it with them. When referred to the pay slip, 'MM4' in the affidavit in reply, the complainant denied that she was paid for her accrued leave days and leave value. She explained that she should have been paid for 48 days but she was only paid for 16 days. When referred to paragraph 19 of the same affidavit in reply, the complainant stated that the gratuity she was claiming was calculated at 2 5% of her basic pay. When referred to paragraphs 10 and 11 of her affidavit in support of the notice of complaint, she stated that she was not aware of the respondent's procedure for termination of employment. When referred to paragraph 6 of her affidavit in reply, she stated that she did not sign the new contract on the date it was presented to her. That she was not given the time frame within which to sign. She stated that she delayed to sign the contract because she was negotiating for a salary increment. J16 3.0. THE RESPONDENT'S CASE 3.1. Sandra Kalumbi Awuku, Human Resource Manager in the respondent University testified on its behalf as RWl. 3.2. In her affidavit and at trial, the witness testified that the complainant's first contract of employment with the respondent was for a period of one year from 26 th July, 2021 to 25 th July, 202 2. That the second contract was for a period of two years from 26th July, 2022 to 25 th July, 2024. 3.3. She testified that on 14th June, 2024, the respondent initiated the process of renewing the complainant's contract which was set to commence on 26 th July, 2024 and end on 25 th July, 2026. She produced a copy of the said contract, "SKAl." That the witness sent a contract renewal form to the complainant for her to initiate the contract renewal process. That she requested the complainant to complete the form and submit it that very day to her supervisor, who was the Chairperson for the Centre for Information, Communication Technology (CICT). However, the complainant did not complete and submit the form as per the email. Thereafter, the witness walked to the complainant's work station to remind her to complete and submit the contract renewal form . That at J17 the time the email was sent on 14th , June, 2024, it was approximately one month and two weeks before her contract came to an end. A reminder was sent on 21 st June, 2024 after verbal reminders were unfruitful. However, the complainant still did not complete and submit her form. 3.4. On 16th July, 2024, the complainant was given a final reminder via email to complete the contract renewal form and informed that 17th July, 2024 was the last day given to her to complete the forms. That the complainant responded on 17th July, 2024 and submitted the contract form to the CICT Chairperson. That in good faith, they proceeded with the renewal processes. That her new contract was ready for signing by 16th August, 2024 and the complainant was advised to collect the contract from the witness's office via the email, "SKA2". However, the complainant only went to collect the copy about five days later. That the complainant refused to sign the contract and expressed dissatisfaction with her salary increment. That she went back on 2nd October, 2024 to request for an upward salary adjustment. 3. 5. That the witness guided the complainant to put it in writing and the complainant made mention that some of her colleagues were getting higher pay than her. That the witness guided her that she could not refer to other J18 employees when requesting for salary increments because the respondent's employment contracts were individual contracts. That the complainant put in a formal written request for an upward adjustment of her salary through the email, "SKA3" on 3rd October, 2024 demanding a further increment of K3 ,000.00. That the matter was tabled before management and an analysis of the financial capacity to further adjust the complainant's salary in the next tenure was made. That at the time, only part of what she requested for could be given based on the respondent's financial capability. That the complainant was given 11% salary increment. That the percentage was in addition to the 5% increment which had initially come with the new contract. That the total increment came to 16%. 3.6. The witness testified that on 17th October, 2024 which was in the payroll week, the witness sent the complainant an email inviting her for a discussion over the salary adjustment request she had made. That when the complainant went to her office, the witness informed her of the salary increment of 11% and advised her to collect the salary adjustment letter, "SKA4" on 31 st October, 2024 but the complainant requested if the salary could further be adjusted upwards. That the witness told the complainant that further adjustments could not be made J19 because that was the best the respondent could give. That the witness informed the complainant that it was time for pay roll preparation and that she needed consent from her for them to implement the 11% increment. That the complainant agreed to the 11% increment and the witness informed her that after the conclusion of the payroll week; she would formally write to her. 3. 7. That on 3 pt October, 2024, the witness prepared the letter for the 11% salary adjustment and invited the complainant to collect the copies of the letters of salary adjustment. That the complainant did not go on the same day but went on 5th November, 2024. That the witness requested for the signed copies of her contract but the complainant did not give them to her. That she also requested the complainant to sign a copy of the letter of the salary adjustment and leave a copy with her but the complainant told her that she could not sign it because she wanted a further adjustment or that the 11% increment to be applied on the net pay. That she informed the complainant that the 11% increment was the best the respondent could give her. That the complainant insisted that she wanted the full amount of what she had requested for but the witness told her that the respondent could not further adjust her salary. That upon her insistence, the witness told the complainant that she had the right to make a further J20 request but the outcome would still be the same and the complainant left her office. 3.8. That the witness then sent the complainant the email; "SKAS" requesting her to submit her signed contract to her office and to indicate whether she would accept or reject the terms and conditions in her contract. That the complainant responded via the email, "SKA6" stating that she wished to continue negotiating for a salary increment. That the witness then wrote to her the letter, "SKA?'' reiterating their discussion in her office that the respondent could not make a further salary adjustment beyond what it already had done; and that she needed to indicate whether she was going to continue with the terms and conditions provided in the contract. That the complainant was given upto close of business on 7th November, 2024. 3.9. That at that point, after multiple attempts to resolve the issue, the respondent realised that they did not have one mind with the complainant as the complainant had persisted in her refusal to sign the contract and did not respond to further requests. That with the advice of the Labour Inspector, the complainant's services were then terminated owing to the fact that the new contract of employment had not been signed; there was no J21 communication of signing by the complainant; and that the period given to the complainant had elapsed . To that effect, the witness produced the letter of termination, "SKA8." 3.10. The witness further testified that upon the termination of her contract, the complainant was paid a basic pay of K3,441.67; gratuity in the sum of Kl 1,172.92; leave pay of Kl6,559.71; housing allowance of Kl,032 .50; transport allowance of K750.00 and lunch allowance of KS00.00 as shown by the pay statement, "SKA9." 3.11. The witness added that the course load allocation to the lecturing staff had many factors but the maximum number of courses that a Lecturer could take or be allocated was four courses per semester as per the High Education Authority stipulations and additional tasks allocated as per the number of courses. That the other determining factor for additional tasks being given was the number of students in a class. That if a Lecturer had been allocated two classes, one may find that the student population was higher, and in addition, may be given extra more students to supervise which ordinarily someone with four courses could not be given. That that included marking scripts: That any course load above and beyond four courses was J22 regarded as extra and the Lecturer would have to be paid for the extra work by request from the Lecturer. 3 .12. She contended that the complainant was not entitled to any of the reliefs she was seeking and urged the court to dismiss her complaint with costs. 3 .13 . During cross-examination, when referred to the contract, "MM2b" in the affidavit in support of the notice of complaint, the witness confirmed that it was the complainant's first contract of employment. That according to clause 2 of the said contract, it was to run for a period of one year. That the basic pay was K204,000.00 per annum as per clause 6 of the contract which translated to Kl 7,000.00 per month. When referred to the document marked, "MM2c", the witness confirmed that it was an amendment to the first contract, "MM2b". That on the said document, "MM2c", the gross salary was Kl 7,500.00. That the respondent agreed to the terms and conditions indicated in the said document through its representatives, Maureen Sichali and Lusinta Ngulube. 3.14. When referred to the contract, "MM2a", the witness stated that it was the complainant's second contract and it was for a duration of two years as provided in clause 4 from :. J23 261h, July, 2022 to 25 th July, 2024. That the gross salary was Kl 7,500.00 as stated in clause 8. 3.15. When referred to the contract, "MMl", the witness stated that it was the contract that the complainant had refused to sign. When referred to clause 4 of the said contract, the witness stated that the period of employment was for two years from 24th August, 2024 to 25 th July, 2025. When referred to clause 8 of the said contract, the witness stated that the total gross salary was Kl8,475.00. When referred to clause 2 5, the witness confirmed that the document bore the signature of Lusunta Ngulube (C.0 .0). When referred to the pay statement, "MN3a", the witness stated that the total income for the month of August, 2024, was Kl8, 475.00. When referred to the pay statement, 'MM3b', the witness confirmed that the total gross income for the month of September, 2024 was K18,475.00. when referred to the pay statement, "MM3c", the witness stated that the gross income for the month of October, 2024 was K20,42 5 .00. 3.16. When referred to the letter of termination, "MN4" dated 08th November, 2024, the witness confirmed that the termination was with immediate effect. That the letter indicated that the complainant had no valid contract with the respondent. That the reason given was that the J24 complainant had rejected the respondent's offer and her commitment was compromised. She stated that in the said letter, the respondent did not ask the complainant to exculpate herself. 3 .17. The witness admitted that prior to living in Ndola, the complainant resided in Kalulushi and she was a mother of four children. When referred to the email, "MM 1" in the complainant's affidavit in reply, the witness said that the email was dated 7'h November, 2024. She stated that in the said email, the complainant did not explicitly reject the respondent's offer. When referred to paragraph 4 of the said email, the witness confirmed that the complainant had requested to discuss the salary increment. When referred to paragraph 1 of the letter of termination, "MM3" in the affidavit in reply, the witness confirmed that the email that was referred to in the said letter was the email; "MMl" dated 7th November, 2024 and that the complainant's employment was terminated a day after she sent the email to the Human Resource Manager. When referred to the letter, "MM2" dated 7th November, 2024 in the affidavit in reply, the witness confirmed that the complainant was given one day to respond to the letter. When referred to the letter of termination, "MM3" in the affidavit in reply, the witness stated that the respondent did not make any specific reference to terms and J25 conditions of the complainant's contract of employment or any statutory provision in the said letter. 3.18. When referred to the pay statement, "SKA9" , in the respondent's affidavit in opposition, the witness stated that the calculations for gratuity and leave pay were not based on the entire two year contract period. She stated that she did not show the court that there no discrepancies between the salaries of the complainant and her colleagues. That she did not mention that management's decision did not take into account that the complainant's salary was lower than her colleagues. She stated that she re-tabled the complainant's further request before management although she did not produce any minutes to show that the matter was tabled before management. 4.0. FINAL WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS 4.1. Learned Counsel for both parties filed final written submissions. I will not reproduce them but I will refer to them where relevant. 5 . O. CONSIDERATION OF THE EVIDENCE AND DECISION OF THE COURT J26 5 .1. I have considered the evidence on record and the final submissions by Counsel for both parties. 5. 2. It is not in dispute that the complainant was employed by the respondent as an ICT Lecturer on a fixed term contract for one year from 26th July, 2021 to 25 th July, 2022 . Upon the expiration of the said contract, it was renewed for a period of two years from 26 th July, 2022 to 25 th July, 2024. 5.3. On 14th June, 2024, the respondent initiated the process of renewing the complainant's contract by escalating the email exhibited on page 1 of the respondent's bundle of documents to the complainant. In the said email, the respondent notified the complainant that her contract was coming to an end on 25 th July, 2024; and advised her to complete the attached form and submit it to her supervisor before close of business that same day. The complainant did not complete the form as advised. As a result, on 2 l51 June, 2021, and the respondent sent her a reminder to do so via the email exhibited on page 2 of the respondent's bundle of documents. The complainant still did not complete the form prompting the respondent to send yet another reminder on 16 th July, 2024 via the email on page 3 of the respondent's bundle of documents. In the said email, the respondent notified the complainant that that was the final reminder that her contract was coming J27 to an end on 25 th July, 2024. She was advised to initial the renewal process by close of business on 17th July, 2024 if she intended to renew her contract of employment. On 17th July, 2024, the complainant sent the email exhibited on page 4 of the respondent's bundle of documents informing the respondent that she had completed the form and apologised for the delay. 5 .4. It is not in issue that after the complainant's contract of employment came to an end on 25 th July, 2024, she had continued working normally. In the meantime, she continued negotiating for a better salary than that which the respondent had agreed to be paying her under the new contract. Further, the respondent was paying her the revised salary under the new contract for all the months she worked from 26th July, 2024 to 8th No·vember, 2024 when her contract was terminated. 5.5. On 16 th August, 2024 by the email, "SKA2," the respondent informed the complainant that her contract was ready for collection. The complainant was handed the contract, "MM l" exhibited to her affidavit in support of the notice of complaint. In the said new contract, the complainant was offered a basic salary of K13,250.00 depicting an upward adjustment of K750.00 from K12,500.00 basic salary in her previous contract, "MM2a." J28 5.6. Upon being given the new contract of employment, "MMl" the complainant went to see the respondent's Human Resource Manager, Mrs. Awuku and requested for a further salary increment. Mrs. Awuku advised the complainant to put her request in writing. On 3rd October, 2024, the complainant sent the email exhibited on page 20 of the respondent's bundle of documents to the Human Resources Manager requesting for an upward adjustment of her salary by K3,000.00 which would have bought her basic salary to Kl5,454.00. 5. 7. The same day, on 3rd October, 2024, the Human Resource Manager responded to the complainant via the letter exhibited on page 21 of the respondent's bundle of documents informing her that the respondent had adjusted her basic salary upwards to Kl 4,750.00 representing an increase of Kl,500.00 to her basic salary. 5.8. On 17th and 3 pt October, 2024, the Human Resource Manager sent to the complainant the emails exhibited on pages 23 and 24 of the respondent's bundle of documents advising her to collect the aforestated letter. When she went to collect the letter, the complainant asked the Human Resource Manager if the increment of Kl,500.00 could be added to her net pay instead of her basic pay. She J29 was again advised to put her request in writing. The Human Resource Manager also advised the complainant to sign the letter of salary adjustment in the meantime to accept the offer but the complainant declined and asked if she could first wait for the response to her second request. 5.9. On 5th November, 2024, the Human Resource Manager wrote to the complainant the email exhibited on page 2 5 of the respondent's bundle of documents asking her to submit her contract and indicate whether she had accepted or declined the terms and condition in the said contract. However, the complainant did not do so. The Human Resource Manager again wrote the email exhibited on page 26 of the respondent's bundle of documents advising the complainant to provide feedback before the close of business on that day in order for them to chart the way forward concerning their employment relationship. In response , the complainant sent the email exhibited on page 2 7 of the respondent's bundle of documents in which she insisted on an upward salary adjustment of K3,000.00 and asked for an opportunity to discuss the matter further. Later the same day, the respondent wrote the letter exhibited on page 28 of the respondent's bundle of documents informing the complainant that the respondent could only afford the J30 adjustment made on 3rd October, 2024. She was asked to indicate whether she was going to proceed with the employment or wished to separate with the respondent by close of business on 8th October, 2024. 5.10. On 8th November, 2024, the respondent wrote to the complainant the letter exhibited on page 29 of its bundle of documents notifying the complainant of the termination of her employment owing to her failure to sign her renewed contract. 5 .11. Following the termination of her contract of employment, the complainant was paid her dues as per the pay statement exhibited on page 31 of the respondent's bundle of documents. 5 .12. Dissatisfied with the respondent's decision, the complainant commenced this action against the respondent seeking a number of reliefs tabulated in paragraph 1.1. of this judgment. 5 .13. From the evidence in this matter, the following are the issues for determination: J31 5 .13 .1. Whether there existed a valid contract between the parties after the expiry of the complainant's two-year fixed term contract on 25 th July, 2024. 5.13.2. Whether the complainant's failure to sign the new contract vitiated the validity of the said contract. 5.13.3. Whether the termination of the complainant's contract of employment was unfair and/or wrongful thereby entitling her to the payment of damages. 5 .13 .4. Whether the complainant is entitled to the payment of one month's pay in lieu of notice. 5 .13. 5. Whether the complainant is entitled to the payment for leave pay; accrued leave days; and gratuity. 5.13.6. Whether the complainant is entitled to the payment of damages for inconvenience, emotional and mental distress. 5 .13. 7. Whether the respondent should be compelled to issue a testimonial or reference in respect of the complainant. 5 .13 .8. Whether the complainant is entitled to costs of or incidental to these proceedings. 5 .14. It is trite that the burden to prove any claim made rests solely on the complainant regardless of what may be said J32 of the respondent's case. This was the holding in the case of Elizabeth Sokoni Mwenya v CFB Medical Centre Ltd 1 where the Supreme Court held that: "A claimant always bears the burden of establishing his or her case. This requires that the complainant proves any allegation made, by adducing evidence to support such allegation, to the required standard." 5.15. Therefore, the onus is upon the complainant to prove her claims. The standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities. 6.0. WHETHER THERE EXISTED A VALID CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE COMPLAINANT'S TWO-YEAR FIXED TERM CONTRACT ON 25TH JULY, 2024 6.1. According to the unchallenged evidence of the complainant, three weeks before the expiry of her two year fixed term contract, "MM2a", the Human Resource Manager, Mrs. Awuku emailed her to inquire whether she was interested in renewing her contract which was expiring on 25 th July, 2024. In response, she answered in the affirmative. The written contract, "MMl" exhibited to her affidavit in support of the notice of complaint was eventually given to her on 10th August, 2024. Upon receiving the said contract, she perused the terms and J33 conditions of service. That before she could sign it and return it to Mrs. Awuku, she went to see Mr. Musonda, her supervisor, over her serious concern regarding the new salary under the new contract. Her basic salary under the expired contract, "MM2a" was Kl2,500 .00 whereas the basic salary under the new contract was K13,250.00 resulting in an increment of K?S0.00. This salary increment did not please her. However, in the intervening period between the time Mrs. Awuku asked her to indicate whether she would renew her contract and 10th August, 2024, she had continued to perform her normal duties and responsibilities as ICT Lecturer. 6.2. On the other hand, it was the respondent's testimony that on 14th June, 2024, they had initiated the process of renewing the complainant's contract which was to commence on 26th July, 2024 and end on 25 th July, 2026. That despite the several reminders, the complainant did not complete the contract form, "SKAl " until 17th July; 2024 which was the last and final date given to the complainant to complete the contract renewal form . That in good faith, they proceeded with the renewal process of her contract. 6.3 . I have considered the parties' evidence. J34 6.4. I have perused the complainant's contract of employment which came to an end on 25 th July, 2024 by effluxion of time. The relevant provision which governed the renewal of contracts was clause 11.4.1 which stated that: "Your long-term contract will terminate at the end of the contract unless otherwise renewed or extended." 6. 5. It is undoubtedly clear that the contract under which the complainant was serving automatically expired at the end of the two-year period. The respondent had the discretion to renew it or extend it. 6.6. It is trite that for there to be a valid contract, there must be a consensus ad idem meaning that there is agreement to the essential terms and subject matter of the agreement. In simple terms, there must be the meeting of minds between the contracting parties. 6. 7. In this case, the parties had known very well the fundamental terms of the contract of employment that was intended to be renewed, the respondent having had renewed the complainant's contracts based on similar terms on two occasions. Therefore, the meeting of the parties' minds must be unquestionable. J35 6.8. The learned authors of Halsbury's Laws of England, Volume 9, 4 th edition state in paragraph 226 as follows: "The strict consensus theory has, however, been modified ... , it is now settled that an apparent meeting of the minds of the parties will suffice for a binding contract. Where a party has so conducted himself that is a reasonable man would believe unambiguously assenting to the terms proposed by the other party, the former is precluded from setting up his real intention and is bound by the contract as if he had intended to agree to the other party's terms" that he 6.9. Further, in paragraph 300, it is stated that: "It has probably now become a rule of English common law that an agreement will not be enforced unless it evinces an intention to create legal relations; that it is not sufficient that there is an agreement supported by consideration, unless the parties also evince an intention to create legal (that is contractual) relations. In many instances, there can be no doubt that a legal relation was intended, and in others it will be equally clear that it was not; but there will also be cases where the matter remains in doubt, and the court is then faced with the task of determining the intention of the parties. Ordinarily, the test will be objective one of whether a reasonable man would regard the off er made to him as one which was intended to create legal relations; and what is decided may be considerably influenced by the importance of the agreement to the parties, and this is especially the case if one of them has performed his side of agreement." 6.10. In casu, the conduct of the complainant showed that she had agreed to be bound by the terms and conditions which had been embodied in the contract that had just expired which she knew to be similar to the contract that was J36 proposed for renewal. As a result, she continued to work beyond 25 th July, 2024. The respondent equally allowed her to continue working. 6.11. Considering the way the parties conducted themselves, I am satisfied that there was consensus ad idem between the parties with the sole intention of creating a legally binding contractual relationship between them. In the circumstance of this case, I have, therefore, no doubt in my mind that the parties had intended to create a legally binding contractual relationship between them resulting in a valid contract. The new contract was for the period of two years from 26th July, 2024 to 25th July, 2026. 7.0. WHETHER THE COMPLAINANT'S FAILURE TO SIGN THE NEW CONTRACT VITIATED THE VALIDITY OF THE SAID CONTRACT 7 .1. It was common cause that after the complainant received the new contract, "MM l" exhibited to the affidavit in support of her notice of complaint on 10th August , 2024, she expressed her unhappiness with the new salary that was indicated in the new contract and as such, she engaged the respondent's Human Resource Manager for an upward adjustment of the salary. The salary negotiations that ensued between the parties were unsuccessful. The J37 protracted negotiations between the parties which yielded no positive result ended up in the termination of the complainant's new contract of employment. 7.2. The following is a brief background to the salary negotiations and the eventual termination of the complainant's contract of employment. 7.3. The complainant's new contract was ready for signing by the complainant on 16th August, 2024. After collecting the contract, she did not sign because she was dissatisfied with the salary increment. Consequently, on 3rd October, 2024, by the email, "SKA3", the complainant requested for an upward salary adjustment in the sum of K3,000.00 . In response to her demand, the respondent awarded her 11% salary increment in addition to the 5% increment which was effected in the new contract. After being notified about the 11% salary increment, the complainant requested for a further upward salary adjustment. Following some discussions, she eventually agreed to the 11% salary increment. 7.4. On 3 pt October, 2024, the respondent's Human Resource Manager prepared letters for the 11% salary increment; and invited the complainant to go and sign the said letters but the complainant did not sign them as she had requested for a further salary adjustment. In addition, the J38 Human Resource Manager asked the complainant for the signed copies of her new contract but she did not give her the said copies. 7.5. By the email, "SKAS" dated 5th November, 2024, the respondent requested the complainant to submit her signed copies of the new contract; and to indicate whether or not she had accepted the terms and conditions of her new contract. She replied that she still wished to continue negotiating for a salary increment. Eventually, the respondent terminated the complainant's contract of employment on 8 th November, 2024. The letter of termination of the complainant's contract of employment, "SKAS" dated 8th November, 2024 was partly couched as follows: "RE: EMPLOYMENT TERMINATION DUE TO UNSIGNED CONTRACT 1. With immediate effect, the institution has made a decision to separate with you for the reason that we have not reached consensus and you have not accepted the off er and subsequent addendums, hence have no valid employment contract with the University for the employment relationship to persist. 2. 3. It is a requirement for any employee to have a valid employment contract that has been mutually consented to and signed by both parties." 7.6. I have considered the evidence. J39 7. 7. There is no issue that the main reason for the termination of the complainant's renewed contract of employment was because she did not sign the said contract. As I have already found, there existed a valid contract between the parties. I wish to reiterate that the complainant had continued to work under the terms and conditions stipulated in her new contract of employment. Correspondingly, the respondent was also paying her salaries based on the new contract. Now, the question which must be determined is whether the complainant's failure to sign the new contract could have impaired the legal validity of the new contract. 7.8. The above question was aptly resolved by the Court of Appeal in the case of Stamp Duty Commissioners v African Farming Equipment Company Limited2 where it was held: "It is not necessary that an agreement should be signed by both or all parties for it to be operative against a party who has signed it." 7.9 . The above decision applies with equal force to the circumstances of this case. It is not in issue that it was the respondent that had prepared the contract and requested the complainant to sign it. For its part, the respondent was J40 satisfied with all the terms and conditions signaling its agreement to be bound by the contractual terms. Though the complainant did not sign the contract in question, she had conducted herself in a manner that made her to be bound by the terms of the renewed contract. Therefore, the failure by the complainant to sign her new contract did not vitiate the validity of her new contract. Resultantly, the said new contract remained enforceable at law. 8.0. WHETHER THE TERMINATION OF THE COMPLAINANT'S CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT WAS UNFAIR AND/OR WRONGFUL THEREBY ENTITLING HER TO THE PAYMENT OF DAMAGES 8.1. First and foremost, I have noted that the complainant framed her claim as 'damages for unfair and wrongful dismissal'. 8.2. In the case of Redrilza Limited v Abuid Nkazi and Others3, the Supreme Court guided that there is a difference between 'dismissal' and 'termination'. That dismissal involves the loss of employment arising from disciplinary action while termination allows the employer to terminate the contract of employment without invoking disciplinary action. That, therefore, the terms J41 'termination' and 'dismissal' cannot and should not be used interchangeably. 8.3. I have analysed the evidence in this case and I am quite satisfied that the complainant was not dismissed from employment as no disciplinary proceedings had been instituted against her. I am of the firm view that the relief that the complainant is seeking is for the payment of damages for unfair and/or wrongful termination of her contract of employment. 8.4. I will now proceed to determine whether the complainant's contract of employment was wrongfully and/or unfairly terminated. 8.5. The learned authors, Judge Dr. W. S. Mwenda and Chanda Chungu, in their book entitled: A Comprehensive Guide to Employment Law in Zambia, state at page 228 as follows: "Where a termination is not carried out in line with the law, or where the employer terminates employment without giving a reason, such termination will be referred to as unfair termination and for termination contrary to the contract of employment as wrongful" 8.6. On the above authority, unfair termination can be said to be one where the employer terminates the contract in breach of a statutory provision or without justifiable J42 reasons. On the other hand, wrongful termination is one where the employer terminates the contract in breach of the provisions in the contract of employment or in breach of the rules of natural justice. 8. 7. In the present case, the complainant contended that her employment was wrongfully and unfairly terminated as i~ was done contrary to the provisions of her contract of employment, "MM l". That it was done abruptly and in a manner that was blatantly unfair to her. She argued that according to her contract, she should have been given one months' notice of termination or the respondent should have paid her one month's salary in lieu of such notice. She also argued that the reason given by the respondent of 'unsigned contract' was not provided for in the contract as one of the reasons which could lead to the termination of her contract. 8.8. Further, she argued that she had not refused to sign her new contract as she was made to believe that she was working under an agreement with the respondent while negotiating for her salary increment. She also argued that it was not true that her commitment to duty had been compromised. That she had continued to serve the respondent normally, conducted herself well and there was no evidence showing that she had failed in her J43 capacity as a Lecturer. She stated that in fact, the respondent had allowed her to carry on her responsibilities. She concluded that it was, therefore, unfair of the respondent to say that she was working without a valid contract. 8.9. On the other hand, the respondent argued that when presented with her new contract, the complainant did not sign it despite several reminders as she was demanding an upward salary adjustment of K3,000.00 on her basic pay. That the respondent instead offered the complainant an upward adjustment of Kl,500.00 but she still did not sign the contract and indicated that she wished to continue with the negotiations. That as a result, the respondent realised that they did not have one mind with the complainant as she had persisted in her refusal to sign the contract and did not respond to the respondent's further requests to sign it. That the complainant's services were then terminated owing to the fact that she had not signed her new contract of employment; there was no communication from the complainant about signing the contract; and that the period given to the complainant to sign the said contract had elapsed. 8.10. I have considered the arguments from both parties. J44 8.11. I will start by determining whether the termination of the complainant's contract of employment was unfair. 8.12. It is not in issue that the main reason for the termination of the complainant's renewed contract of employment was her failure to sign the said contract which had led the respondent to come to the conclusion that there was no valid employment contract with the complainant. However, as I have already concluded, there existed a valid contract between the parties at the time the respondent terminated the complainant's contract of employment. Therefore, I find that the reason given by the respondent for terminating the complainant's contract of employment was not a justifiable reason. In the result, the termination of the complainant's contract of employment was unfair. 8 .13. I will now turn to determine whether the termination of the complainant's contract of employment was wrongful. 8.14. Clause 11.2 of the complainant's contract of employment, "MM l" provided that either party terminating the contract had to give the other party one month notice or pay one month's salary in lieu of notice. Therefore, the respondent should have given the complainant one months' notice of the termination of her contract of employment or pay her one month's salary in lieu of notice. This, the respondent J45 did not do. Instead, it terminated the complainant's contract with immediate effect. Such action was in breach of the above provision of her contract of employment resulting in the termination being wrongful. 8.15. Having found that the termination of the complainant's contract of employment was both unfair and wrongful, it follows that the complainant is entitled to the payment of damages for the unfair and wrongful termination of her contract. 8.16. In the case of Eston Banda and Edward Dalitso Zulu v The Attorney General\ the Supreme Court guided that the general measure of damages where there is nothing extra ordinary is an amount equivalent to the notice period provided in the contract or in the absence of such provision, a reasonable period. 8.17. From the above authority, it is settled that the normal measure of damages that applies is the contractual length of notice or the notional reasonable notice where the contract is silent. However, the normal measure is departed from where the circumstances and the justice of the case so demand. J46 8.18. In discussing the factors that warrant departure from the common law measure of damages in the case of Josephat Lupemba v First Quantum Mining and Operations Limited5, the Court of Appeal referred to two leading cases of Chilanga Cement Plc v Kasote Singogo6 , and Barclays Bank (Z) Plc v Weston Luwi and Suzyo Ngulube7, decided by the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal observed at page JS of the judgment that: "We note that in the two cases, the Supreme Court guided on the factors to be taken into consideration to award damages beyond the common law practice of notice period. Some of the considerations are future job prospects, inconvenience, stress and abruptness of termination. In so guiding, the emphasis was that the trial Court should consider all the circumstances of each case and where it considers that a particular case is deserving, it should go beyond the common law measure of damages." 8.19. In the case of Dennis Chansa v Barclays Bank Zambia Plc8 , the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts award of 36 months salaries as damages on the ground that as global economies deteriorate , the chances of finding employment even by graduates are dimmer. 8.20. On the fac ts of this case, I have decided to depart from awarding the complainant damages equivalent to the notice period having considered the fact that the chances of finding employment in the current domestic and global economic environment are dimmer. Further, the J47 termination of her contract of employment which was done abruptly caused her a great deal of inconvenience and stress. Therefore, I award the complainant damages equivalent to twenty-four (24) months of her basic salary plus allowances for the wrongful and unfair termination of her contract of employment. 8.21. According to clause 8 of her contract of employment, "MM 1", the complainant was entitled to a monthly basic salary of Kl3,250.00; housing allowance of K3,975.0; transport allowance of K?S0.00; and lunch allowance of KS00.00 making a total of Kl8,475.00 full pay per month. That amount multiplied by 24 months gives a total of K443,400.00 which is the total amount of damages I award to the complainant. 9.0. WHETHER THE COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED TO THE PAYMENT OF ONE MONTH'S PAY IN LIEU OF NOTICE 9 .1. As found above, the respondent should have given the complainant one month's notice of termination or pay her one month's salary in lieu of notice as per clause 11.2 of her contract, "MMl" but it did not do so. Therefore, this claim has succeeded and I enter judgment in favour of the complainant in the sum of KlB,475.00. J48 10.0. WHETHER THE COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED TO THE PAYMENT FOR LEAVE; ACCRUED LEAVE DAYS; AND GRATUITY 10.1. The complainant has claimed that when the respondent terminated her contract, it failed to pay her the sum of K34, 107 .69, being her leave pay for 48 days for the contract period. She has also claimed for the payment of the sum of Kl4,2 l l.53 for 20 accrued leave days . She has further claimed for the payment of gratuity at the rate provided in the Employment Code Act No. 3 of 2019 and her contract of employment, "MM l" in the sum of K2 21,700.00. 10.2. On the other hand, the respondent argued that upon the termination of her contract, the complainant was paid all her dues for the period she had worked including gratuity in the sum of Kll,172.92 and leave pay in the sum of Kl6,559.71 as shown by the pay statement, "SKA9." 10.3. I have considered the parties' arguments. 10.4. With regard to the claim for the payment for 20 accrued leave days, the pay slip, "SKA9" for the month of November, 2024 has revealed that upon the termination of her contract, the complainant had only accrued 19.46 J49 leave days for which she was paid the sum of Kl6,559.71. Therefore, her claim for the payment for 20 accrued leave days is bereft of merit and is accordingly dismissed. 10.5. I now turn to determine the complainant's claim for the payment of the sum of K34, 107.69 being leave pay for 48 days and gratuity in the sum of K2 21,700.00 which she would have earned had she served the entire period of her new contract. 10.6. It is on record that the complainant only worked from 26 th July to 8 th November, 2024 under the new contract, "MMl." Therefore, awarding her leave pay and gratuity for the contract period which she did not work for would amount to unjust enrichment. I am fortified by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kitwe City Council v William Ng'uni9, where it was held that: "You cannot award a salary or pension benefits, for that matter, for a period not worked for because such an award has not been earned and might be properly termed as unjust enrichment." 10. 7. In this regard, the complainant was only entitled to pro rata remuneration for the period she worked for under the new contract from 26 th July, 2024 to 8 th November, 2024. The pay slip, "SK9" showed that the complainant was paid all her dues pertaining to the period she worked for the JSO respondent under the said contract. Therefore, this claim lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 11.0. WHETHER THE COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED TO THE PAYMENT OF DAMAGES FOR INCONVENIENCE, EMOTIONAL AND MENTAL DISTRESS 11.1. I have taken this claim into consideration by awarding the complainant damages in excess of the normal measure of damages, which ordinarily should have been one month's notice pay. 12.0. WHETHER THE RESPONDENT SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO ISSUE A TESTIMONIAL OR REFERENCE IN RESPECT OF THE COMPLAINANT 12 .1. With regard to this claim, the complainant prayed the court for an order for the respondent to provide her with an employment reference confirming the good work she did for the respondent. 12.2. Section 59 (2) of the Employment Code Act No. 3 of 2019, provides for the issuance a testimonial, reference or certificate of character to an employee on the termination of employment. The said section provides as follows: JSl "An employer may give a testimonial, reference or certificate of character to an employee at the termination of the employee's service." 12.3. It can be seen from the reading of the above statutory provision that issuing a testimonial, reference or certificate of character to an employee at the termination of the employee's service is in the discretion of the employer. Therefore, the respondent cannot be compelled to issue a testimonial or a reference to the complainant regarding her work with the respondent. Therefore, this claim cannot stand and is accordingly dismissed. 13.0. INTEREST 13.1. I have awarded the complainant damages in the sum of K443,400.00 arid one month's pay in lieu on notice in the sum of Kl8,475.00 making a total sum of K461,875.00. The said sum of K461,875.00 shall attract interest at the average short-term deposit rate from the date of the notice of complaint to the date of judgment; and thereafter, at the current lending rate as determined by the Bank of Zambia until full settlement of the judgment debt. 14.0. WHETHER THE COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED TO COSTS OF OR INCIDENTAL TO THESE PROCEEDINGS ~ JS2 14.1. The complainant has prayed for the award of costs of these proceedings. Costs in this Division can only be awarded in accordance with Rule 44 of the Industrial Relations Court Rules, Chapter 269 of the Laws of Zambia. The said Rule 44 provides: "Where it appears to the Court that any person has been guilty of unreasonable delay, or of taking improper, vexatious or unnecessary steps in any proceedings, or of other unreasonable conduct, the Court may make an order for costs or expenses against him." 14.2. In the present case, I find that none of the circumstances listed under Rule 44 of the Industrial Relations Court Rules which could have persuaded me to award costs to the complainant had arisen. Therefore, I make no order for costs. 15.0. Leave to appeal is granted. Delivered at Ndola this 30th day of September, 2025. Davies C. Mumba HIGH COURT JUDGE