Pay Him 60 Months Salary – Court
By Dickson Jere
A Zambian Expert – with BA in Science and Physics as well as MA in Science and Management – was employed by Africonnect Zambia Limited in 2015 on Permanent and Pensionable contract. He was “Head of Enterprise Provisioning & Support”. He did a fantastic job and the company even gave him a meritorious award of excellence for his performance.
But then, the company decided to reassign him a new role – “Head of Infrastructure & Governance” – which he was not qualified for. However, he was promised that he would be trained as he required new skills and competence. Out of his six planned training sessions, only three were conducted. In 2020, the company decided to dismiss him for poor performance.
As expected, he sued in the High Court, demanding for an allay of damages including for unfair, unlawful, wrongful dismissals and redundancy. The company insisted that he was fired for poor performance and failure to meet targets.
The Judge analysed the evidence and determined thus;
“I am satisfied that the Respondent having reassigned the Complainant to a new role which he was not adequately qualified for, it had a duty to ensure that the Complainant gets adequate training for the said position,” the Judge said.
“The reason for the dismissal therefore cannot stand,” he said, adding that the dismissal was unfair and ordered damages of three years salary.
“The actions of the Respondent amount to gross misbehavior and the Complainant, like any other employee, must be protected from such whims and caprices of powerful employers such as the Respondent…” the Court said.
The Judge further found that the dismissal also met the threshold for unlawful termination and therefore ordered a further one year salary with all otter pecks as damages to be paid the employee.
On wrongful dismissal, the Court also found that the dismissal perfectly fits legal definition of being “wrongful termination” and ordered another one year salary with all pecks as damages.
“It has been established that the Respondent failed to provide the requisite training as well as working skills for the Complainant to discharge this new assignment,” the Judge observed.
On redundancy, once again, the Judge found that the dismissal amounted to redundancy and ordered further damages of two months pay for every year served and other benefits that he was entitled to as compensation.
“Thus, notwithstanding the fact that he continued working in the said new role amounts to redundancy,” the Judge said.
He, however, threw out claims for loss of earnings and mental distress for lack of adequate evidence.
Case citation – Eddie Nyimbwa v Africonnect Zambia Limited- Comp No. IRLK/250/2020 and Judgement delivered last month June 2025.
Lectures Notes;
1. This is an interesting case. Rarely do Courts order damages for unlawful, unfair and wrongful dismissal and then add redundancy, which is a totally different aspect of the law. The total 60 months salary as damages is also one of the rarest if not the first in our jurisdiction.