Lc/h/219/25

### Preamble
1
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/219/25
---------


Before the Honourable Kudya J;

For the Applicant	- In person

For the Respondents	- C.T. Nhemwa	Legal Practitioner

KUDYA J:

On 3 June 2025 this Court handed down order LCH ORD 405/25 which ordered the following:

“Matter be and is hereby struck off the roll for the reason that it is improperly before the court. Each party bears own costs.”

On 4 June 2025, the applicant by letter addressed to the Registrar formally requested for reasons for the order of 3 June 2025. They are they: -

The background to the matter is that the applicant employee filed an application with this Court under Section 89(2)(c) of the Labour Act where he sought the following relief:

“The application for an order in terms of Section 89(2)(c) of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 (the Act) be and is hereby granted.

The termination of Applicant’s employment contract as per 2nd respondent’s 5th August 2015 dated termination letter being an errant nullity be and is hereby set aside.

Applicant be and is hereby reinstated to his position as 2nd respondent’s Harare Branch Accountant with retrospective effect from 4 November 2014 without loss of salaries and benefits.

Respondents jointly and severally be ordered to quantify applicant’s outstanding arrear salaries and benefits owed from April 2014 to date of grant of this order.

Punitive damages in lieu of reinstatement be and are hereby ordered against 2nd respondent from the date of grant of this order for the next two (2) years on condition that 2nd respondent fully and officially discharges its onus prescribed under Section 89(2)(c)(ii) of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 (the Act).

Each party to bear its own costs of suit.”

On 11 April 2025 the respondents filed with the Court their opposition, which in a nutshell opposed the grant of the relief sought by the applicant and prayed that, the dismissal of the application be made together with an order for costs on a legal practitioner client basis.

The response in summary form brought to the fore the fact that, applicant was not entitled to the relief which he was seeking because, there was an extant order relieving him of his job, which order had not been set aside. It stated also that, applicant had approached the Labour Court seeking to have his claim quantified but, the Labour Court refused him that relief on the basis that, he could not point out to any valid reinstatement order upon which the quantification claim could rest.

The respondents hastened to mention that, applicant had filed an appeal with the Supreme Court seeking a setting aside of the Labour Court decision which denied him quantification relief. The respondents went further and stated that, applicant had withdrawn the appeal to the Supreme Court mentioned above and that, a determination of costs is what remained under that case.

They reiterated also that, the 2nd respondent was under corporate rescue and, litigation against it was only in limited circumstances. In the case at hand, it is clear that, the High Court judgment of 26 March 2025 by Foroma J in HCH552/24 stated clearly that,

“Applicant be and is hereby granted leave to institute the following legal proceedings against 3rd Respondent --------------

b, Quantification application at the Labour Court for quantification of arrear salaries and allowances outstanding since April 2015	"

This means that, applicant could only sue for the quantification component of his labour claim. In the result, respondents prayed as stated above that, the application be dismissed with costs on an attorney client scale.

In preparing for the hearing, the court observed that, there were a number of issues which had to be clarified before it could decide whether indeed there was a good or bad case for the grant or denial of the relief sought by the applicant. This scenario caused the court to call the parties to its chambers to clarify the issues which in the court’s view were dispositive of the matter.

When the parties were called in, the applicant confirmed that, indeed he had approached the Labour Court based on the limited litigation powers which he was granted by the High Court but his application was thrown out by the Labour Court. This prompted him to appeal to the Supreme Court but, he withdrew the appeal and what remained of it was the determination of costs only.

He hastened to mention that, he was sitting on a record 13 judgments from across the courts’ divide, that is, Magistrates court, Labour Court, High Court and Supreme Court yet he seemed not to get any relief from them all. He also stated that, he had successfully resisted eviction from the company house which he occupies to date. He therefore did not understand why the 2nd respondent argued that, he was no longer its employee yet, he was staying in its house.

He reasoned that, he was prompted to bring the instant application by the throwing out of his quantification application by the Labour Court. He therefore, persisted that he be granted the relief which he was seeking.

The court explained to the applicant that, it sat at the same level with the court which the applicant states that, refused him quantification relief. It hastened to mention to him that, since the order refusing him quantification relief was extant, it could not go ahead to grant him the relief he was seeking under the instant application.

The court also hastened to mention that, the High Court order which granted applicant limited litigation powers was clear that, he could only litigate on the quantification component of his labour claim. He could thus not seek the relief which he sought in the first 2 paragraphs of this application. For that reason, his application was not properly before the court.

The court reiterated that, until the Supreme Court granted or denied the quantification order, there was no relief which applicant could say he was seeking under the instant application.

The court observed that, the respondents had sought a dismissal of the claim with costs on the higher scale but there was nothing to dismiss as the application was improperly before the court. Applicant relied heavily on a judgment from the Supreme Court which, he said was written by Mathonsi JA and, which he said stated that his labour issues should be handled by the Labour Court.

The said sentiments did not detract from the fact that, his application was improperly before the court. Whilst it is granted that, labour disputes are determinable by the Labour Court, such can only be done within the proper context of the law. The instant application was misplaced, so there was nothing to dismiss and no need made any costs order for either party.

It is for the above brief reasons that order LCH Ord 405/25 was birthed.

It was so ordered on 3 June 2025.

Nhemwa and Associates	Respondents’ Legal