By Dickson Jere
Zindaba Soko was RTSA CEO until January 2019 when his contract expired. He had notified his superiors of his intention to renew his contract for another three years but they did not respond. However, he continued working for nine months without a contract until when he received a “termination letter”. In the interim, they even appointed him RTSA board member.
He then sued RTSA arguing that the nine months he worked constituted a renewal of his contract and therefore the termination was unlawful. He also demanded that RTSA should sell him vehicle – one he was using- during that nine months period and be paid full benefits.
The High Court ruled that the nine months did not constitute a renewal of contract and therefore there was no unlawful dismissal to entitle him full benefits. However, the Court ruled that he, nevertheless, was entitled to buy the vehicle he was using during that nine months.
The vehicle issue did not go well with RTSA which then appealed to the Court of Appeal. Soko also launched cross appeal.
A panel of three Judges heard the case. They agreed with the High Court that the nine months he worked without a contract was not a renewal and that the same was clearly stated in his contract.
“Instead, such continued work is regarded as ‘temporary arrangement’ not an extension of the original contract and in such a case, the employee is only entitled to pro rata remuneration for additional work but does not acquire a legally renewed contract,” the Judges said.
The Court observed that RTSA had in fact paid him all his dues including the pro rata benefits that he worked for during nine months.
“Public policy reinforces the principle that contracts freely entered into must be upheld strictly according to their terms,” the Judges said, adding that as CEO he knew what he signed for in the contract.
“The Respondent (Soko) employment ended naturally through effluxion of time upon reaching its agreed duration, distinct from termination, which involves prematurely ending a contract by employer or employee action,” the Judges said.
On the purchase the second vehicle, the Judges disagreed with the High Court and said he was not entitled since the nine months was not a contract.
“Without a renewed contract, there is no legal basis for entitlement to a second vehicle,” the Court said, adding that such finding was perverse and amount to unjust enrichment.
“The trial court erred in granting the Respondent entitlement to purchase a personal to holder vehicle,” the Court said.
The Court further ordered that Soko should pay RTSA legal costs for the case both in the High Court and Court of Appeal, which the lower Court had not ordered.
Case citation – Roads Transport and Safety Agency v Zindaba Soko – Appeal No. 84 of 2023 and Judgement delivered on 26th February, 2025.
This case underscores the need to pay attention to the terms and conditions of the contract of employment before signing. In this contract, there was a clause that clearly stated that continued working after contract had expired does not constitute renewal.
