News / National
ConCourt dismisses US$97K suit from former Old Mutual employee
18 Oct 2024 at 08:50hrs | Views
The Constitutional Court (ConCourt) has dismissed a US$97,247 lawsuit filed by Christmas Mazarire, a former employee of Old Mutual Shared Service, who was challenging the computation of his retrenchment package.
Mazarire had cited several respondents in his application, including his employer Old Mutual Shared Service, the retrenchment board, the Minister of Public Service, and the Attorney-General. The case was heard by Justices Paddington Garwe, Rita Makarau, and Ben Hlatshwayo.
In his application, Mazarire accused Old Mutual and the retrenchment board of violating his labor rights, as guaranteed under Section 65 of the Constitution. He claimed that his rights to a fair hearing and to equal protection and benefit of the law were infringed upon, particularly in relation to a Supreme Court ruling regarding his retrenchment.
Mazarire sought a declaration that the Supreme Court's ruling was unconstitutional and requested that Old Mutual be ordered to pay him US$97,247.
According to court documents, Mazarire was retrenched without notice in 2014. After his dismissal, he approached the High Court, which ordered his reinstatement along with restoration of his salary and benefits. Following this, in July 2014, Old Mutual reinstated him but quickly issued another notice of its intention to retrench him again.
In March 2015, the Retrenchment Board approved Old Mutual's application to retrench Mazarire. On April 16, 2015, Old Mutual paid him a sum of money calculated based on his pensionable salary, excluding non-pensionable benefits and allowances. Mazarire alleged that this calculation prejudiced him, leading to a loss of US$97,247.07 due to the exclusion of his entitled benefits.
Dissatisfied with the decision, Mazarire sought a review from the Labour Court, which dismissed his application. He subsequently filed for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, which he initially received, but later sought direct access to the ConCourt.
However, the ConCourt ruled that Mazarire's application was improperly pleaded and thus incompetent. The judges stated that the application did not raise a constitutional issue that would warrant the court's jurisdiction.
"It is, therefore, my conclusion that the intended application does not raise a constitutional issue that will trigger the jurisdiction of this court. It follows that it is not in the interests of justice that direct access to the court be granted," the judges ruled.
As a result, the court dismissed Mazarire's application, ordering that each party bear its own costs.
Mazarire had cited several respondents in his application, including his employer Old Mutual Shared Service, the retrenchment board, the Minister of Public Service, and the Attorney-General. The case was heard by Justices Paddington Garwe, Rita Makarau, and Ben Hlatshwayo.
In his application, Mazarire accused Old Mutual and the retrenchment board of violating his labor rights, as guaranteed under Section 65 of the Constitution. He claimed that his rights to a fair hearing and to equal protection and benefit of the law were infringed upon, particularly in relation to a Supreme Court ruling regarding his retrenchment.
Mazarire sought a declaration that the Supreme Court's ruling was unconstitutional and requested that Old Mutual be ordered to pay him US$97,247.
According to court documents, Mazarire was retrenched without notice in 2014. After his dismissal, he approached the High Court, which ordered his reinstatement along with restoration of his salary and benefits. Following this, in July 2014, Old Mutual reinstated him but quickly issued another notice of its intention to retrench him again.
Dissatisfied with the decision, Mazarire sought a review from the Labour Court, which dismissed his application. He subsequently filed for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, which he initially received, but later sought direct access to the ConCourt.
However, the ConCourt ruled that Mazarire's application was improperly pleaded and thus incompetent. The judges stated that the application did not raise a constitutional issue that would warrant the court's jurisdiction.
"It is, therefore, my conclusion that the intended application does not raise a constitutional issue that will trigger the jurisdiction of this court. It follows that it is not in the interests of justice that direct access to the court be granted," the judges ruled.
As a result, the court dismissed Mazarire's application, ordering that each party bear its own costs.
Source - newsday
