- The Zambia Gazette
- Subject Index
- Law scholarship
- About Us
- Contact Us
The Appellant was previously employed by the 1st Respondent from 1998 to July 2009, when she was disciplined over some shortages and later dismissed. She claimed that in November 2009, she was re-employed by the 1st Respondent as a Revenue Collector. However, she was not put on the payroll. She further claimed that in February 2013, she was transferred to the Provincial Medical Office, where she was put on the payroll. On this basis, she sued the Respondents, alleging that because she was never put on the payroll, she was not paid her salaries and leave days from November 2009 to January 2013, a period totalling 37 months. The Respondent argued that the Appellant was not paid for the period in question because she had not reported to the station she was appointed to.
After analysing the evidence, the trial judge found that the Appellant had not worked during the 37 month period, and as such, was not entitled to payment. The case was dismissed for lack of merit.
The Appellant appealed.
The trial judge cannot be faulted as he considered the evidence adduced by both parties including the documentary evidence, which as shown, proved that the Appellant did not work during that period.