Law Portal
Zimbabwe

Welcome To Law Portal

Welcome, Guest!
[Help?]

Jurisdiction re: Labour Proceedings

HH84-12 : CHRISTOPHER BARNSLEY vs HARAMBE HOLDINGS (PVT) LTD AND ANOTHER
Ruled By: MATHONSI J

The applicant was employed as Group Engineering Director by the first respondent, which represented itself as a holding company comprising several subsidies with the second respondent as its Chief Executive Officer.The letter of his appointment containing the terms of employment, dated 7 May 2009, was signed by the second respondent ...
More

SC23-11 : MUKUNDI PLASTICS (PVT) LTD vs ELIJAH CHASEKWA and THIRTEEN OTHERS
Ruled By: ZIYAMBI JA, GARWE JA and OMERJEE AJA

The respondents were retrenched as a result of an application for voluntary retrenchment. The retrenchment was approved by the Retrenchment Board and payment was made in the respondents' accounts on 16 January 2009. On or about 29 July 2009, the respondents, discontented by the fact that their packages were paid in Zimbabwean dollars, took the ...
More

HH23-08 : EDWIN MUSHORIWA vs ZIMBABWE BANKING CORPORATION
Ruled By: GOWORA J

According to the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01], in particular section 3 thereof, the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] applies to all employers and employees, save where the employment is in terms of the Constitution. The applicant was not employed in terms of the Constitution. This application, therefore, falls under the provisions of section 89(1) of the Labour Act ...
More

HH23-08 : EDWIN MUSHORIWA vs ZIMBABWE BANKING CORPORATION
Ruled By: GOWORA J

In terms of section 89(1) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01], amongst the powers bestowed on the Labour Court by the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] is the power to, in subsection 1(d)(i), exercise the same powers of review as would be exercisable by the High Court in respect of labour matters. This was the amendment ...
More

HH78-02 : CONSTANCE PANGETI vs THE GRAIN MARKETING BOARD
Ruled By: MAKARAU J

This is an application for review brought in terms of Order 33 of the High Court Rules. The facts of the matter are not in dispute. They are as follows:The applicant joined the respondent in 1990 as a typist. This appears to have been on a temporal basis, for, in ...
More

HH26-10 : MEDICAL INVESMENTS LIMITED vs RUMBIDZAYI PEDZISAYI
Ruled By: MAKARAU JP

The applicant and the respondent were employer and employee respectively. The respondent was employed by the applicant as its Chief Pharmacist with effect from 1 December 2002 up to November 2008. It was a specific term of her employment that the respondent would be entitled to the use of a motor vehicle during the course ...
More

HH150-09 : SOUTHBAY REAL ESTATE (PVT) LTD vs SOUTHBAY PROPERTIES (PVT) LTD and G RATISSO and CHIEF REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES
Ruled By: MAKARAU JP

The jurisdiction of this court over all matters and people in Zimbabwe is a power inherent in the court as the only superior court in the land with unlimited jurisdiction at first instance.It is not ousted save by the clearest language in a statute.In instances where this court has concurrent ...
More

HH51-10 : DHL INTERNATIONAL (PVT) LTD vs CLIVE MADZIKANDA
Ruled By: MAKARAU JP

In his heads of argument. The respondent argued that this court has no jurisdiction to determine the matter, exclusive jurisdiction in the matter having been reposed in the Labour Court by the provisions of section 89 of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] The issue of when the jurisdiction of this court is ousted by ...
More

SC46-15 : NATIONAL RAILWAYS OF ZIMBABWE vs ZIMBABWE RAILWAYS ARTISANS UNION AND OTHERS
Ruled By: ZIYAMBI JA, GWAUNZA JA and GUVAVA JA

This appeal, from the judgment of the Labour Court, raises the issue whether an Arbitrator can, in a compulsory arbitration, dictate the terms of a Collective Bargaining Agreement between the parties.Collective Bargaining Agreements are governed by Part X of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] (“the Act”). They are to be ...
More

HH148-10 : ZIMASCO (PVT) LIMITED vs FARAI MARIKANO
Ruled By: MTSHIYA J

This is an opposed application wherein the applicant seeks the following relief:“1. Respondent shall, within two hours of the service of this order on him, restore the following property to the applicant;(a) Mitsubishi Pajero 3.0 Registration Number AAV-5956;(b) Laptop HP Compaq 6720;(c) Cellphone Samsung D880;2. The cost of this application ...
More

HH164-10 : KENNETH PATRICK McCOSH vs PIONEER CORPORATION AFRICA LIMITED
Ruled By: KUDYA J

The plaintiff, a former financial director of the defendant company, filed summons on 8 July 2009 seeking payment of the capital sum of US$72,334 and interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date when the amount fell due to the date of the issue of summons in ...
More

HH204-10 : BENSON SAMUDZIMU vs DAIRIBORD HOLDINGS LTD
Ruled By: CHIWESHE JP

The legal issue that arises in this chamber application is whether the provisions of the Labour Act [Chapter 20:01] exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court in areas where the Labour Court has jurisdiction. Section 89(6) of the Labour Act [Chapter 20:01] provides –“No court, other than the Labour Court, shall have jurisdiction in the ...
More

HH254-10 : TAAZADZA MUNHUMUTEMA vs JOSHUA TAPAMBWA and SYDNEY KAZHANJE and STANBIC BANK ZIMBABWE LIMITED
Ruled By: MUTEMA J

..., on 7 July 2008, the applicant lodged contempt of court proceedings against the third respondent in the Labour Court. That application was dismissed on the basis that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain it.
More

HH27-13 : ARNOLD SIKHUMBUZO MAHLANGU vs C Z L INCORPORATED (PRIVATE) LIMITED
Ruled By: MAKONI J

The respondent raised a point in limine that this court has no jurisdiction on the basis that the claim arises from the termination of the applicant's employment contract with the respondent. The matter falls within the realm of the labour law. The applicant then filed a replying affidavit in which he persisted with the issue that this ...
More

HH31-11 : ESTHER CHIYADZWA vs BETTY MAGUWU
Ruled By: BERE J

On the initial day of the hearing of this matter, I invited counsel to address me on the second issue which I deemed to be quite central and decisive in this matter. After hearing what I would term extremely conservative submissions from counsel I held that this court had jurisdiction to determine the issues raised in ...
More

HH94-11 : BEMBA FARM (PVT) LTD vs ZIMBABWE HORTICULTURE AGROINDUSTRIES AND GENERAL AGRICULTURE WORKERS UNION and OTHERS
Ruled By: BHUNU J

If the applicant's complaint is that the respondents are inciting its employees to embark on illegal collective job action, this becomes essentially a labour dispute subject to resolution in terms of the Labour Relations Act. It is now settled law that the High Court, or any other court for that matter, has no jurisdiction to hear ...
More

HH102-11 : KAREN TUMAZOS vs TRAVEL CONECTIONS (PRIVATE) LIMITED and STEWART CRANSWICK
Ruled By: MTSHIYA J

In supplementary heads of argument filed on 8 February 2011, the respondents argued this was a labour matter which should be dealt with under section 89 of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01]. It was submitted that this was so because the applicant had indicated that she had instituted proceedings in the Ministry of Public Service, Labour ...
More

HH116-11 : TELECEL ZIMBABWE (PVT) LTD vs NAQUIB OMAR
Ruled By: CHIWESHE JP

In his supplementary heads of argument, the respondent argued, in limine, that this court has no jurisdiction to determine the matter. Section 89(6) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] provides as follows: “(6) No court, other than the Labour Court, shall have jurisdiction in the first instance to hear and determine any application, appeal or ...
More

HH124-13 : HOSEA JAMBWA vs GRAIN MARKETING BOARD
Ruled By: MATHONSI J

Even if I am wrong in that conclusion, the applicant still has the insurmountable difficulty arising from the provisions of section 89(6) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] which provides: “No court, other than the Labour Court, shall have jurisdiction in the first instance to hear and determine any application, appeal or matter referred to ...
More

HB95-11 : MADINDA NDLOVU vs HIGHLANDERS FOOTBALL CLUB
Ruled By: CHEDA J

With regards to the issue of jurisdiction, I have had sight of the case of Tuso v City of Harare HH01-04 which was referred to me by counsel for the respondent for which I am grateful. I am of the view that the present case is distinguishable as it deals with an acknowledgement of debt, ...
More

HH38-14 : JULIET HOMODZA vs CHITUNGWIZA MUNICIPALITY
Ruled By: TAKUVA J

The respondent filed an appearance to defend and subsequently a special plea the nub of which is that this court has no jurisdiction to determine this matter in that issues relating to non-payment of terminal benefits and arrear salaries are specifically within the purview of the Labour Court as these matters are provided for in ...
More

HH171-14 : ANDREW KASERERA and JOHN SIBANDA and SYDNEY MANDIDI and MECK NCUBE and MAJORA LEMBACHURU vs RIOZIM (PRIVATE) LIMITED
Ruled By: MANGOTA J

(b) Jurisdiction This preliminary matter is easily discounted on the basis of the reasoning and findings which the court made in the first matter in limine. This entire case, it is observed, is hinged on the vindicatory, and not disciplinary action which the respondent appears to want the court to accept. The court is satisfied that ...
More

HH187-14 : CHRISTMAS MAZARIRE vs OLD MUTUAL SHARED SERVICES (PRIVATE) LIMITED
Ruled By: MTSHIYA J

In response to the respondents' opposition, the applicant submitted that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to issue a declaratur, and, as such, the applicant cannot obtain the remedy through the provisions of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. The Labour Act [Chapter 28:01], it was submitted, spells out what the Labour Court can do. The applicant said ...
More

HB168-11 : NOKUTHULA MOYO vs NORMAN GWINDINGWI N.O. and DAIRIBOARD ZIMBABWE (PVT) LTD
Ruled By: MATHONSI J

I am in total agreement with MAKARAU JP…, when she stated in DHL International Ltd v Madzikanda HH51-10 that the Labour Court has exclusive jurisdiction in matters relating to suspensions from employment and that the possession of the employer's property by an employee in terms of the contract of employment is so interdependently linked to ...
More

HH211-14 : ZIMBABWE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION COMPANY vs RONALD MUTOMBODZI
Ruled By: NDEWERE J

I have considered the submissions on jurisdiction and I have concluded that the application, being a rei vindicatio, the High Court has jurisdiction to deal with the matter on the basis of the Zimasco (Pvt) Ltd v Marikano SC181-10 matter.
More

HH272-14 : TREVIGLO SERVICES trading as TADA TEAK AND IRON vs EMMERSON GWATIDZO
Ruled By: CHIGUMBA J

The applicant is guilty of failure to act timeously in seeking the appropriate remedies provided by the Labour Act. The applicant is guilty of flirtting from one legal practitioner to another like a bee that flirts from flower to flower in the never-ending search for the right pollen to improve the quality of its honey. ...
More

HH295-14 : SURFACE INVESTMENTS (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs MAURICE CHINYANI
Ruled By: DUBE J

The jurisdiction of the Labour Court is governed by Section 89 of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. The relevant paragraphs read as follows; “89(1) The Labour Court shall exercise the following functions - (a) Hearing and determining applications and appeals in terms of this Act or any other enactment; and (b) …,.; and (c) …,.; (d) ….,. ; (e) …,.; (6) No court, other than the Labour ...
More

HH566-14 : TAWADZERA ZISHIRI and SHIRELLA PETERS and ANDRA NYANDEBVU and VIOLET CHATINDO and OTHERS vs STREAMSLEIGH INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD
Ruled By: MATHONSI J

I agree with counsel for the first respondent that to the extent that the applicants are seeking to enforce an employment contract, that dimension of the matter takes the form of a labour dispute which should be resolved by the Labour Court in terms of the ouster provisions of section 89(6) of the Labour ...
More

HH586-14 : WELLINGTON TAKAWIRA vs CZI INCORPORATED (PVT) LTD
Ruled By: UCHENA J

The applicant was the respondent's employee. He resigned from employment by letter dated 1 October 2013. The respondent accepted his resignation by letter dated 6 January 2014. Through the same letter, the respondent acknowledged that it owed the applicant US$32,542=07 for salaries, pension refunds, cash in lieu of leave, and ...
More

HB09-14 : ZIMPAPERS GROUP OF COMPANIES T/A THE CHRONICLE NEWSPAPERS vs MILIDZI KHUPHE and THE HONOURABLE M. MOYO-MATSHANGA
Ruled By: MOYO J

The applicant's counsel contends that the inherent jurisdiction that the High Court has includes the review of matters from the Labour Court….,. The applicant's counsel further contends that the High Court, with its inherent jurisdiction, is armed with the requisite powers to review the decisions of the Labour Court on the grounds that he has given. Section ...
More

HB21-14 : JONA NDALAMA vs COMMISSIONER GENERAL OF POLICE and CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT SIGAUKE and CO-MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS
Ruled By: MOYO J

This is an application for condonation for the late noting of an appeal against the decision of the Commissioner General of Police (the 1st respondent herein)….,. The applicant was convicted in terms of the Police Act [Chapter 11:10] and was sentenced to pay a fine of $10= by a single officer. He appealed to the ...
More