issue in the pleadings as a separate done so, this claim was cause of action”. As he had not not before court; the High Court was therefore wrong in awarding such damages. The payment for the three months in lieu of notice was, however, confirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeal, and to date still stands. 24. Subsequently, the Applicant again approached the Supreme Court of Appeal, asking it to review its judgment of 12 July 2004, The Applicant was relying on sections 31 and 43 of the Constitution of Malawi. 31 guarantees Section the right to fair labour practice, and section 43 ensures administrative justice. As the Applicant was invoking the provisions of the Constitution, the Supreme Court of Appeal referred the matter to the Constitutional Court, which is a chamber of the High Court, comprising three judges. 25. The matter was dully enrolled before the Constitutional Court. Constitutional employment Court held legislation, that the case could be that the namely, case was well the Employment disposed of by invoking governed Act, by 2000. section The the It found 57(2) of the Employment Act, which protected an employee against unfair dismissal. It held that the matter would therefore best be handled by the Industrial Relations Court, which, a court of law. The in terms of the Constitution of Malawi, was matter was accordingly referred to the Industrial Relations Court. yes / ce “CAL —? (11) Tae ZO also q ‘ <a Qe