Thewe v Good Samaritan Ministries (IRC MATTER NUMBER 344 OF 2025) [2025] MWIRC 21 (6 October 2025)

sA REPUBLIC OF MALAWI IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF MALAWI PRINCIPAL REGISTRY IRC MATTER NUMBER 344 OF 2025 BETWEEN: OWEN THEWE..………………….….…….….……...……………………………………...APPLICANT AND GOOD SAMARITAN MINISTRIES…………...…………………………………………RESPONDENT

Coram

WYSON CHAMDIMBA NKHATA (DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON) Mr. O. Thewe – Applicant (Present and Unrepresented) Mr. J. Malindi – Respondent (Present and Unrepresented) Mr. F. Zakaria – Court Clerk and Official Interpreter

Introduction

This matter was brought before the Industrial Relations Court of Malawi by the applicant, Mr. Owen Thewe, against his former employer, Good Samaritan Ministries, also known as Victory World Outreach. The applicant alleges that following the end of his employment, the respondent failed to pay him several benefits which he believes were lawfully due to him. The dispute arose after his resignation from the position of administrator at the respondent’s children’s home situated in Blantyre. According to the applicant, he was first engaged by the respondent in November 2002 and served in various capacities, beginning as a primary school teacher, later as head teacher, and finally as administrator. He stated that throughout his service he worked diligently and often beyond normal hours, including weekends and public holidays. Upon resigning in March 2025, he claims he was not paid his gratuity, accumulated leave days, compensation for public holidays worked, overtime pay, and certain months of withheld salary. The total amount claimed stands at fifty-nine million, two hundred sixty-five thousand, seven hundred sixty-five kwacha and seventy-seven tambala. The respondent, through its representative, Mr. Joseph Malindi, denies all the claims and maintains that the applicant was not entitled to the benefits he seeks. It asserts that prior to April 2024, the applicant served only on a voluntary basis and that his formal employment commenced from that date until his resignation in March 2025. The respondent further argues that the applicant was covered under a contributory pension scheme with Old Mutual and that he received all payments due to him, including a severance package Owen Thewe v Good Samaritan Ministries, IRC Matter No. 344 of 2025 Page 1

issued during a transition of management. It also maintains that his resignation was voluntary and uncoerced, and that no salary was withheld at any point. The matter proceeded to a full hearing after an attempt at mediation held on the twelfth day of June 2025 before the Commercial, Industrial and Allied Workers Union failed to achieve a settlement. Both parties were represented during the proceedings, and each had an opportunity to call witnesses and tender documentary evidence. After the hearing, the Court reserved judgment to be delivered on the twenty-second day of September 2025. This judgment therefore arises from a consideration of the evidence presented by both sides and the submissions made in respect of the claims. The central issue before the Court is whether the applicant was entitled to the benefits he now seeks and whether his employment history, as alleged, establishes a basis for the relief claimed against the respondent.

Evidence

Evidence Adduced by the Applicant During the hearing, the applicant, Mr. Owen Thewe, took the witness stand and testified under oath. He stated that he was employed by the respondent, Good Samaritan Ministries, in November 2002 as a primary school teacher. Over the years, he rose through the ranks, first becoming head teacher in 2007 and later being promoted to the position of administrator in 2013. He explained that Good Samaritan Ministries operates a children’s home under Victory World Outreach and provides education, shelter, and care to orphans. The applicant told the Court that as an administrator, he was required to live within the compound where the children resided. His duties included supervising the welfare of the children and the staff, ensuring discipline, attending to emergencies, and overseeing the day-to-day running of the institution. He said that by the nature of his work, he was required to be present at all times and that his service did not follow fixed hours. He described his employment as one that demanded constant availability, explaining that even during nights, weekends, and public holidays, he was responsible for the welfare of the children and could not leave the premises. He testified that his last salary was three hundred and fifty thousand kwacha per month. According to him, he performed his duties faithfully until he tendered his resignation on 17 March 2025, which was later accepted by the respondent on 19 March 2025. The applicant said that upon resigning, he expected to receive his terminal benefits, but none were paid. He stated that he approached the respondent several times to claim what he believed was due to him but received no satisfactory response. In his evidence, the applicant claimed that he was entitled to gratuity, payment for accrued leave days, compensation for public holidays and overtime worked, as well as salary arrears for months during which he was not paid. He told the Court that he had been paid consistently until June 2020, after which the respondent stopped paying his salary without any explanation. He added that between July 2020 and March 2023 he relied on financial assistance from friends abroad, which was remitted through the same account used by the respondent, since all financial transactions were required to pass through the office. Owen Thewe v Good Samaritan Ministries, IRC Matter No. 344 of 2025 Page 2 Mr. Thewe produced several documents to support his case, including an offer letter dated 30 March 2007, wage sheets showing his name listed among salaried employees, and copies of correspondence that he said demonstrated his long-term engagement with the respondent. He maintained that he was a full-time employee from 2002 until 2025 and that his service during that period entitled him to all the benefits he was claiming before the Court. He also told the Court that he had attempted to seek assistance from the trade union but was only advised to pursue the matter formally through the Industrial Relations Court. He admitted that the organization had not been keeping proper records for overtime or leave days, but argued that this failure was not his fault. He said the institution never gave him an opportunity to rest or go on annual leave, and that he worked continuously throughout his years of service. To support his case, the applicant called two witnesses. The first witness, Mr. Gift Somanje, testified that he was employed by the respondent as a garden boy at the same children’s home. He confirmed that Mr. Thewe worked very hard and was constantly on duty, often remaining within the premises both day and night. He stated that during the time he worked there, employees never had holidays or proper rest days. He said the applicant worked tirelessly attending to the children and that even on Sundays, when others went to church or rested, the applicant was still working within the compound. The second witness, Ms. Ethel Chizumule, also worked at the children’s home. She told the Court that she was initially engaged as a volunteer, but despite that designation, she and others received fixed salaries. She said that the applicant was always present at the home and appeared to be the person in charge of its daily operations. According to her, workers under the program were not given public holidays or annual leave, and they were expected to remain on duty within the compound at all times. She said that although management at one point spoke of transitioning staff into permanent employment, in practice the work and expectations remained the same. The Evidence of the Respondent The respondent’s evidence was presented through its representative, Mr. Joseph Malindi, who testified on behalf of Good Samaritan Ministries, the organisation that operates the children’s home where the applicant had been employed. Mr. Malindi identified himself as the Director of Operations at the Ministry and stated that the institution is a faith-based charitable organisation affiliated with Victory World Outreach, providing shelter, care, and education to orphaned and vulnerable children in Blantyre. He told the Court that the applicant, Mr. Owen Thewe, was engaged as an administrator whose duties included the supervision of staff, coordination of welfare programmes, procurement of supplies, maintenance of discipline within the children’s home, and general oversight of day-to-day operations. According to Mr. Malindi, the applicant’s formal employment with the respondent began in April 2024, following an internal restructuring exercise designed to regularise all volunteer and informal arrangements. Prior to that, the Ministry had operated on a largely voluntary basis, with many workers, including the applicant, serving without formal contracts. When the restructuring was implemented, written contracts were issued and the respondent introduced a monthly payroll system , along with statutory contributions such as pension and tax compliance. Owen Thewe v Good Samaritan Ministries, IRC Matter No. 344 of 2025 Page 3 Mr. Malindi stated that from April 2024 onward, the applicant was paid a monthly salary of K350,000 , which was disbursed at the end of each month. He explained that because of the nature of the institution, certain staff, including the applicant, were accommodated within the premises to ensure immediate response to any emergencies involving the children. He emphasised, however, that being resident on the premises did not mean that the applicant worked around the clock. Instead, he had normal working hours from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., with an hour’s break, and weekends were considered rest days unless exceptional circumstances arose. The witness also explained that in January 2025, the Ministry implemented a severance settlement scheme to compensate those who had rendered long service before the April 2024 restructuring. Under that arrangement, the applicant received K1,500,000 as a final settlement for his pre-2024 service. Mr. Malindi tendered a copy of the acknowledgment document bearing the applicant’s signature, confirming receipt of the payment and declaring it as full and final settlement for that earlier period. After the payment, the applicant became a registered member of a contributory pension scheme with Old Mutual , and both employer and employee deductions were made each month. The respondent’s position was that, in law and fairness, the applicant could not receive both gratuity and pension, since the two serve the same purpose. Regarding the end of employment, Mr. Malindi stated that the applicant voluntarily resigned by a letter dated 17 March 2025, which management accepted on 19 March 2025. He said that the resignation came unexpectedly, though the tone of the letter was polite and appreciative. The respondent immediately processed his final dues, which included his March salary and payment for any leave balance. He produced a copy of the resignation letter, the acceptance of resignation, and the payment summary as exhibits before the Court. When asked about the applicant’s allegation that he was forced to resign, Mr. Malindi denied it categorically. He told the Court that there had been a minor disagreement between the applicant and another staff member over the handling of a disciplinary matter involving one of the children, but that the issue had been contained. Management had counselled both parties and encouraged reconciliation. Before the matter could be concluded, however, the applicant abruptly tendered his resignation. Mr. Malindi said that management respected his decision and processed his departure without hostility. He stated that at no point was the applicant demoted, suspended, or denied the right to perform his duties. Mr. Malindi also rejected the applicant’s claims regarding unpaid salaries. He testified that all employees, including the applicant, were paid regularly at the end of each month, and that the applicant himself signed off on staff salary sheets as part of his administrative functions. The respondent maintained clear payroll records, and there was no evidence of arrears. Mr. Malindi said it would have been impossible for any employee, much less a senior administrator, to work for fifty-seven months without pay and yet remain silent. He added that the applicant’s resignation letter made no reference to unpaid salaries, which confirmed that there were none. With regard to leave and overtime, Mr. Malindi stated that the applicant, as a managerial employee, was not entitled to overtime pay under the terms of his contract. He explained that overtime benefits applied only to junior staff working under fixed hourly schedules. The applicant’s position required flexibility and occasional availability outside normal hours, but this was inherent in the role, not compensable as overtime. He further testified that the applicant had taken some annual leave in 2024 , and that staff leave forms submitted into evidence bore his name among those who had been granted time off. The claim of thirteen Owen Thewe v Good Samaritan Ministries, IRC Matter No. 344 of 2025 Page 4 years of untaken leave, said Mr. Malindi, was unrealistic and contrary to the institution’s established practice. He stated that the Ministry maintained a humane and faith-based work culture and would never require an employee to work continuously without rest. Mr. Malindi also commented on the claim for work on public holidays, explaining that while the children’s home remained operational throughout the year, active work by administrative staff was not required every day. The applicant’s mere presence within the premises did not amount to work, as he was not expected to perform duties on every holiday. If emergencies arose, the respondent relied on a duty roster that distributed responsibilities among available staff. When cross-examined, Mr. Malindi maintained his composure and repeated that the applicant’s employment became formal in April 2024 following the restructuring exercise. He agreed that the applicant had been associated with the institution before that date, but he emphasised that earlier work was under a voluntary arrangement, not a contract of service. He was firm that the applicant had been paid all his dues, and that any payment made in January 2025 was intended to settle all earlier claims once and for all. Counsel for the applicant pressed him on whether the applicant had complained of mistreatment prior to resignation, but Mr. Malindi responded that no formal grievance was ever lodged. He added that the respondent had an internal grievance mechanism, and that the applicant, being part of management, was well aware of it. When further questioned about whether the applicant’s authority had been curtailed after restructuring, Mr. Malindi denied any deliberate sidelining. He explained that the restructuring merely introduced new reporting channels and redistributed some administrative functions for better accountability, not to diminish the applicant’s role. He said that the applicant remained part of the leadership team until his resignation. Mr. Malindi rejected the suggestion that the applicant’s resignation was provoked or engineered, saying it was voluntary and peaceful. He concluded by reiterating that the respondent had fulfilled all its obligations to the applicant and that the claims before the Court were baseless and exaggerated.