VENTAB (PVT) & ANOR v GONDO & ANOR 1988 (2) ZLR 197 (HC)

Flynote

Contract — of service — breach of — remedies — specific performance desirable — whether can be ordered — interdict ordered where it would achieve same object.

Headnote

The first respondent was a teacher employed by the first applicant. The contract of employment was until the end of 1988, subject to one term's notice by either party. Before the expiry of the contract and about 6 weeks before the first respondent's pupils were due to sit important examinations, she obtained more satisfying employment with the second respondent. The first applicant sought an order of specific performance to compel the first respondent to fulfil her contractual obligations.

Held, that traditionally the courts will not order specific performance in a contract of employment because of the futility of attempting to force an employee to bring his personal attention, application, aptitude and skills to bear on the demands of the contract and because of the impossibility of supervision.

Held, further, that although there were compelling reasons in this case why the first respondent should be ordered to fulfil her obligations, the difficulty of enforcement remained. The normal alternative remedy of damages would not be viable, since the damage would be suffered primarily by her pupils and was unquantifiable. The appropriate order would be one of an interdict restraining the first respondent from continuing her employment with the second respondent until the end of 1988 or until her pupils had completed their examinations, whichever event occurred first.