John Chirefu and 8 Others v City of Harare

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/404/25
CASE NO. LC/H/74/23
HARARE, 02 OCTOBER, 2025
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/404/25

CASE NO.	LC/H/74/23

HARARE, 02 OCTOBER, 2025

Ans 23 0CTOBER 2025

JOHN CHIREFU AND 8 OTHERS	APPELLANT

CITY OF HARARE	RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable G. Musariri, Judge:

For Appellants	- L. Seremani, Attorney

For Respondent	- N. Masamvi, Attorney

MUSARIRI, J:

On 25th October 2022 Senior Designated Agent J. Gweshe issued a determination which ruled that appellants’ claim against respondent had prescribed. Appellants then appealed the determination to this Court in terms of section 92D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 (hereafter called the Act). Respondent opposed the appeal.

The grounds of appeal were duet thus,

“1.	The Designated Agent grossly erred and misdirected herself in dismissing the Appellant’s claim that they must be placed in a higher Grade 10.

2.	The Designated Agent grossly mis-directed herself when she ruled that the matter had prescribed and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to deal with the matter.”

Appellants prayed that the determination be set aside and substituted with an order placing them in the desired Grade 10.

Respondent countered through its Town Clerk’s affidavit as follows,

“Ad Ground 1 of Appeal

8.    This is denied. The Appellants claim was and remain misguided in both logic and the law. I aver that the designated agent’s ruling can be vindicated. From the factual background of the matter, and from papers filed of record, it is apparent that the Appellants failed to justify why they ought to be placed in the said Grade 10. It is also common cause that the Appellants appeared before the designated agent a quo as an afterthought after having seen the outcome of the case of City of Harare v Makarichi who also had the same grievance as the Appellants,

Ad Ground 2 of Appeal

13.   The Appellants claim had prescribed. The law of the land states that (sic) that adjudication of any dispute of unfair labor practice is restricted to disputes that will have occurred within two years from the date when the dispute or unfair labor practice first arose. The cause of action first arose when the Appellants were transferred from Zinwa and placed in Grade 11. The prescription was therefore occasioned by the fact that the Appellants sat on their laurels and did nothing about their grievances. It was only 9 (nine) years later that the Appellants thought of prosecuting their claim. The period of time taken, frankly speaking is inordinate. This appeal can only be dismissed.”

Respondent prayed that the appeal be dismissed.

Analysis

The Designated Agent (DA) ruled that

“The issue of prescription disposes of the matter. This Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with this matter since it had long prescribed. Therefore there is no need to deal with the merits of the case.

In the final therefore, I make the following disposal that the matter be and is hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction.”

Therefore the 1st ground of appeal is untenable. The Designated Agent did not dismiss appellants’ claim that they must be placed in Grade 10. The Designated Agent simply declined jurisdiction on the basis that the claim had prescribed. The use of the word ‘dismissed’ in the ruling gave the misleading impression that the Designated Agent dealt the merits of the claim when clearly she did not.

The remaining (2nd) ground of appeal raises the sole issue whether appellants’ claim had prescribed. The Designated Agent dealt with the issues thus,

“I find merit in the Respondent’s submission that the cause of action first arose when the Claimants were placed in grade 11 and the Claimants conceded to that. In their submissions Claimants stated they were aggrieved when they were placed in grade 11 under the Public Safety Department instead of grade 10, a position of Sergeant which matches their rank from Zinwa. This is when the cause of action began. Claimants were supposed to refer their matter within two years to the Designated Agent. Waiting for about eight years of non-action did a fatal blow to the Claimants’ case.

In my view, a delay of eight years to bring the matter for redress is inordinate. Claimants conceded in their submissions that J. Makarichi and Others took their matter to Court at that material time within the prescribed period to seek redress because the alleged infraction was complete. They won their case in the Supreme Court and Respondent has since complied with the order.”

It is common cause that appellants are still employed by respondent in Grade 11. This fact was not discussed in the Designated Agent’s determination. If it had been considered the matter should have taken a different turn. This is because of the provisions of section 94 of Act. Subsection (1) prohibits labor officers from entertaining disputes older than 2 (two) years. This is qualified by subsection (2) as follows,

“subsection(1) shall not apply to an unfair labour practice which is continuing at the time it is referred to or comes to the attention of a labour officer.”

In casu at the time the matter was referred to the Designated Agent the appellants were still employed in Grade 11. Therefore the alleged of mis-grading, though it started eight years earlier as noted by the Designated Agent, was still continuing at the time the Designated dealt with the matter. The appellants’ claim thus falls within the exception in subsection (2). Resultantly the Designated Agent had jurisdiction to deal with the matter. This conclusion is consonant with the dicta in,

Mawire v RioZim SC 13/21

Per Mavangira JA,

“A literal reading of the above provision (section 94 of the Act) s that adjudication of any dispute of unfair labor practice is restricted to disputes that will have occurred within two years of the date when the dispute or unfair labor practice first arose. However the exception to that rule is that, if an unfair labor practice is continuing at the time it is referred or comes to the attention of the labour officer, then the two year prescription period in subsection (1) does not apply.”

Underlined for emphasis.

Conclusion

In light of the foregoing analysis it is concluded that the determination by the Designated Agent ought to be set aside. However because the Designated did not deal with the merits of appellants’ claim the matter will be remitted to the Designated Agent for him to consider and determine the merits.

Wherefore it is ordered that,

The appeal be and is hereby allowed;

The determination issued by Senior Designated Agent (SDA) J. Gweshe on 25 October 2022 is set aside;

The matter is remitted back to the SDA or other Designated Agent to consider and determine the merits of appellants’ claim (of misgrading) against respondent; and

Each party shall bear its own costs.

G. MUSARIRI