Back to top
Zalari has raised $2 million USD in a founding round led by Nyamaropa Technologies
Constitutional Court

Zimbabwe Banks and Workers Union (2) Tirivanhu Marimo v (1) Minister of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare (2) The Sheriff of Zimbabwe (3) ZB Bank Limited

Judgment No. CCZ 8/21

Case Details

Court
Constitutional Court
Date
5 October 2021
Citation
Judgment No. CCZ 8/21
Neutral Citation
[2021] ZWCCZ 8
Judgment No.
CCZ 8/21
Outcome
unknown
Case Type
Application

Bench

Presiding
GOWORA AJCC
Full Bench
GARWE AJCCGOWORA AJCCHLATSHWAYO AJCC
Areas of Law
Constitutional LawLabour Law
Keywords
Section 65(2) ConstitutionTrade Union ActivitiesDismissalWorkers' RepresentativeDirect Access
Tags
Trade Union ImmunityConstitutional RightsDirect Access
legislation
Statutes Cited
  • Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013
  • Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013
  • Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013
  • Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]
ai analysis
Case Summary

Key Issues

  • {"issue_text":"Whether it is in the interests of justice to grant direct access to the Constitutional Court","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"All facts regarding the application and its timing"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether the application raises a constitutional matter","issue_type":"constitutional","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"The nature of the relief sought and the challenge to Section 101 of the Labour Act"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether the first applicant has locus standi","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"First applicant was not a party to proceedings a quo"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether Section 101 of the Labour Act and the Supreme Court's interpretation infringes Section 65(2) of the Constitution","issue_type":"constitutional","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"The dismissal of the second applicant for acts as a workers' representative"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case

Background

The second applicant, a workers' committee chairperson, was dismissed for sending emails disclosing confidential salary information and calling for collective job action. The Supreme Court ultimately allowed the employer's appeal, finding the dismissal justified. The applicants then sought direct access to the Constitutional Court, arguing that the law permits employers to dismiss employees for acts performed bona fide as union representatives, infringing Section 65(2) of the Constitution.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases
Open in Zalari →