issue in the pleadings as a separate cause· of action". As he had not done so, this claim was 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. Section 31 guarantees 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 ~~ enrolled before the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court held that the case was well governed by the employment legislation, namely, the Employment Act, 2000. It found that the case could be disposed of by invoking section 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, in terms of the Constitution of Malawi, was also a court of law. The matter was accordingly referred to the Industrial Relations Court. ~- I L~ ~ a~ [11) ~~ --- c . / (G ~ G'