Labour Court dismisses workers' appeal in Crave Clean Bakery dispute

The Labour Court has dismissed an appeal by five former employees of Crave Clean Bakery (Pvt) Ltd, ruling that they failed to prove unlawful termination or any misdirection on the part of the arbitrator.


In a judgment handed down on 30 January 2026, Justice Murasi dismissed the appeal in the matter Phiri and Others v Crave Clean Bakery (Pvt) Ltd and Another (LC/H/1058/25), finding that the claims were not supported by evidence and did not meet the threshold required for appellate interference.

The appellants, led by Robert Phiri, had challenged an arbitral ruling that dismissed their claims of underpayment and unlawful termination. They argued that their contracts were unfairly terminated without due process, including the absence of disciplinary hearings as required under the Labour Act.

However, during proceedings, the workers’ legal representative made key concessions — including acknowledging that some employees had consented to the termination of their contracts and had accepted terminal benefits.

The court noted inconsistencies in the appellants’ arguments, particularly shifting claims on whether the terminations were unilateral or mutually agreed. It also found that allegations of undue influence and misrepresentation were not supported by evidence.

Justice Murasi emphasised that an appellate court can only interfere with an arbitrator’s decision where there is clear evidence of misdirection or irregularity.

“The appellants did not demonstrate any misdirection on the part of the arbitrator,” the court ruled, adding that mere allegations without proof cannot succeed.

On terminal benefits, the court upheld the principle that acceptance of such benefits may amount to a waiver of further claims, particularly where no evidence of coercion is provided.

The court also dismissed claims that a third party had acted without authority in receiving payments on behalf of the workers, noting that these assertions were unsubstantiated.

“The onus lies on the party making the allegation to prove it,” the judge said.

Despite the respondents’ absence during the hearing, the court found no basis to overturn the arbitrator’s decision, concluding that the appeal was devoid of merit.

No order as to costs was made.

The ruling reinforces the strict evidentiary burden placed on employees challenging termination decisions and highlights the limited scope of appeals from arbitration decisions in Zimbabwe’s labour‑law framework.