ZVOKUSEKWA v BIKITA RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL 2015 (2) ZLR 205 (S)

Flynote

Appeal — Labour Court — appeal to — from decision of arbitrator — appeal only lying on point of law — appeal relating to facts — what must be alleged in grounds of appeal — not essential to allege that misdirection on facts is so unreasonable that no sensible person could have reached impugned conclusion — necessary that grounds of appeal are disclosed in clear and concise manner

Employment — Labour Court — appeal to — from decision of arbitrator — appeal only lying on point of law — appeal relating to facts — what must be alleged in grounds of appeal — not essential to allege that misdirection on facts is so unreasonable that no sensible person could have reached impugned conclusion — necessary that grounds of appeal are disclosed in clear and concise manner

Headnote

An appeal to the Labour Court from the decision of an arbitrator, like an appeal to the Supreme Court from the Labour Court, must be basedon a point of law. What constitutes a point of law has been stated and restated in a number of decisions of the Supreme Court. If an appeal is to be related to the facts, there must usually be an allegation that there has been a misdirection on the facts which is so unreasonable that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the facts would have arrived at such a decision. And a misdirection of fact is either a failure to appreciate a fact at all, or a finding of fact that is contrary to the evidence actually presented. However, to constitute a point of law, in all cases where findings of fact are attacked, it is not essential that there be an allegation that there was a misdirection on the facts which was so unreasonable that no sensible person properly applying his mind wouldhave arrived at such a decision. The court should look at the substance of the grounds of appeal and not the form. Legal practitioners often exhibit different styles in formulating such grounds. What is important is that the grounds must disclose the basis upon which the decision of the lower court is impugned in a clear and concise manner. If it is clear that an appellant is criticising a finding by an inferior court on the basis that such finding was contrary to the evidence led or was not supported by such evidence, such a ground cannot be said to be improper merely because the words "there has been a misdirection on the facts which is so unreasonable that no sensible person would have arrived at such a decision" have not been added

thereto. If it is evident that the gravamen is that an inferior court mistook the facts and consequently reached a wrong conclusion, such an attack would clearly raise an issue of law and the failure to include the words referred to above would not render such an appeal defective.