Squire Sichone and Ors v Zambia Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd (Appeal 13 of 1999) [2000] ZMSC 100 (9 August 2000)

IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR ZAMBIA HOLDEN AT KABWE APPEAL NO.13/99 BETWEEN: SQUIRE SICHONE AND 591 OTHERS APPELLANTS AND ZAMBIA CONSOLIDATED COPPER MINES LIMITED RESPONDENT Coram: Chirwa, Muzyamba, Lewanika,JJS. On 18”’ April” 2000 and 9,h August, 2000 For the Appellants: For the Respondent: K. HAN'GANDU OF CENTRAL CHAMBERS J. K. KAITE, LEGAL COUNSEL, ZCCM. ______________ JUDGMENT Lewanika,JS. delivered the Judgment of the Court. ________ In this appeal we shall refer to the appellants as the plaintiffs and the respondent as the defendant which is what they were in the court below. The plaintiffs were employees of the defendant at its Kabwe Division. Following the closure of the defendant’s mine at Kabwe, the plaintiffs were declared redundant and paid off under the provisions of a redundancy agreement entered into between the defendant and the plaintiffs' union. The plaintiffs disputed the amount of the benefits given to them by the defendant and instituted proceedings in the High Court claiming payment of retirement benefits, payment of five months salary in lieu of notice, refund of K499,087.00 surplus money received on house loan, payment of damages for failure to float the plaintiffs' names for alternative employment at other divisions of the defendant, payment of 28x50 kg bags of mealie-meal or payment of its Kwacha equivalent value at the time of judgment (or payment) to each plaintiff, and 58 percent interest on the refund from 30lh -J2- June, 1994 to-date of payment and any other relief under the redundancy dated 20th May, 1994 and the redundancy agreement dated August, 1992 and the collective agreement in force at the time of redundancy, that is, 30<h June, 1994. On the evidence adduced before him the learned trial Judge found that the plaintiffs had been paid all their benefits in accordance with the formula set out in the redundancy agreement save that he found that the plaintiffs were entitled to one 50kg bag of breakfast mealie-meal or its value for the period of the one month notice and dismissed the plaintiffs' other claims. The plaintiffs were dissatisfied with this decision, hence the appeal now before us. Counsel for the plaintiffs filed three grounds of appeal namely: 1. That the learned trial Judge erred in law by not taking into account the provisions of the standard conditions of service contrary to Part 5 of the redundancy agreement. 2. That according to the application of the redundancy agreement, "when an employee who is aged 50 years and above is declared redundant, such employee shall be retired and compensated in accordance with the company's retirement Rules," on which the trial Judge misdirected himself. 3. That the Trial Judge erred by stating that the plaintiffs requested the court to change the redundancy agreement on all the issues raised but merely to interpret them. -J3- We do not intend to repeat the submissions made by Counsel for the plaintiffs and for the defendant as they are on record. The evidence on record is that the plaintiffs received their redundancy pay based on the formula of 28 months pay plus one month’s salary for each completed year of service. They were also given one month's notice as required by the redundancy agreement. There is also evidence on record that alternative employment in other divisions was sought for the plaintiffs before they were declared redundant. The formula for early retirement and redundancy is the same and those plaintiffs who were aged 50 and above did not lose anything on being declared redundant. The 50kg bag of mealie-meal per month was given to the plaintiffs during the currency of their employment with the defendant and did not form part of the package of the redundancy benefits. The increase in the education allowance from K5,000.00 to K9,000.00 came into effect on 1st April, 1995 after the plaintiffs were declared redundant and therefore did not apply to them. Similarly the increase in the repatriation allowances also came into effect after the plaintiffs were declared redundant. We have considered the submissions of Counsel for the plaintiffs and the defendant and the evidence on record and we are satisfied that the learned Trial Judge was on firm ground when he found that the plaintiffs had received all the benefits due to them under the redundancy agreement and find no merit in the appeal which we dismiss accordingly. Given the circumstances of the parties herein, we shall make no order as to costs. -J4- D. K. CHIRWA SUPREME COURT JUDGE W. M. MUZYAMBA SUPREME COURT JUDGE D. M. LEWANIKA SUPREME COURT JUDGE