Scribd
Upload
122 views2 pages

Supreme Court Ruling on Ratification

The internal memo from Counsel Magwaliba to Counsel Muteru discusses attending research on ratification cases. It summarizes a 2005 Supreme Court of Zimbabwe case between the Zimbabwe Republic Police Board of Trustees and G Manyangadze. The Chief Justice said that while the employer's agent may not have had prior authorization to dismiss the respondent, the employer later ratified the agent's actions, making it valid retroactively. Even if the dismissal application was initially voidable, the employer's ratification validated it. The memo concludes by confirming the dismissal of the respondent based on the reinstated determination.

Uploaded by

simdumise magwaliba
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
122 views2 pages

Supreme Court Ruling on Ratification

The internal memo from Counsel Magwaliba to Counsel Muteru discusses attending research on ratification cases. It summarizes a 2005 Supreme Court of Zimbabwe case between the Zimbabwe Republic Police Board of Trustees and G Manyangadze. The Chief Justice said that while the employer's agent may not have had prior authorization to dismiss the respondent, the employer later ratified the agent's actions, making it valid retroactively. Even if the dismissal application was initially voidable, the employer's ratification validated it. The memo concludes by confirming the dismissal of the respondent based on the reinstated determination.

Uploaded by

simdumise magwaliba
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

INTERNAL MEMO

FROM: COUNSEL MAGWALIBA

TO : COUNSEL MUTERO

DATE: 28TH FEBRUARY 2017

RE: ATTENDING TO RESEARCH ON RATIFICATION CASES

In the matter between The Zimbabwe Republic Police Board of Trustees vs G


Manyangadze in the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe on the 21st of July 2005, the
Honourable Chief Justice of Zimbabwe Godfrey Chidyausiku had this to say:-

The issue in this case is one of agency. What needs to be determined is


whether Mamera was authorised by the respondent’s employer to apply
for authority to dismiss the respondent. Whether or not he had prior
authority is debatable. What is certainly beyond question is that the
employer, the Board of Trustees, ratified his conduct. The principle that
ratification of the agent’s action has retrospective effect is so trite that it
requires no citation of authority.

The learned President of the Labour Court clearly misdirected herself in


holding that Mamera’s application for dismissal and suspension of the
respondent was illegal and, therefore, a nullity. Even if the application for
dismissal and suspension did not have the prior authority of the
respondent’s employer that would not render it illegal. It was simply
voidable at the instance of the employer. In a case where the employer
subsequently ratifies the application for dismissal and suspension, as is
the case here, such ratification retrospectively validates both the
application for dismissal and the suspension. The fact that Mamera was
confused or mistaken as to who was the correct employer of the
respondent does not alter the fact that he was acting for a principal or
purported principal.
In the result the appeal is allowed, the order of the Labour Court is set
aside and the determination of the Senior Labour Relations Officer is
reinstated.

For the avoidance of doubt the appellant’s dismissal of the respondent is


confirmed.

You might also like