Natsai Dodo v Zimbabwe National Road Administration

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/38/2023
HARARE, 25 JANUARY 2023 &
30 JANUARY 2023
CASE NO LC/H/531/22
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	   JUDGMENT NO LC/H/38/2023

HARARE, 25 JANUARY  2023 &			   CASE NO LC/H/531/22

30 JANUARY 2023

In the matter between:-

NATSAI DODO							APPLICANT

ZIMBABWE NATIONAL ROAD ADMINISTRATION		RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable Kudya J

For the Applicant		Carlton Mupungani (Legal Practitioner)

For the Respondent		Victoria Musora (Legal Practitioner)

KUDYA, J:

This matter was set down as a chamber application at the instance of the applicant employee. The basis of the application was her disquiet about  how the employer was handling her conditions of service issues especially as regards her entitlement to motor vehicles and school fees allowance.  She prays in her draft order that this court declares that the employer has failed to handle the employee’s grievances properly and that this court decrees that the benefits she claims are indeed due to her.

At the onset of the mater the court quizzed the applicant as to what law she was using to approach the court. In response she stated that it was her considered view that her remedy lay in approaching the labour court since she had now ceased to be an employee of the respondent. To that extent she is of the view that she has been discriminated against and that her rights to what the contract entitled her to has been flouted.

It is settled that the labour court is a creature of statute obliged to deal only with issues that it is  empowered to deal with in terms of the labour Act. It is patently clear from a reading of the labour Act that the labour court does not possess powers to issue a declaration. To that extent it is clear that what applicant seeks to have the court do is not sanctioned by the law. It is also settled that it is not the duty of the court to contract for the parties  See Magodora v Care International SC-24-14.  Granted the applicant could have a good case to bring before the courts of law but the question which she has failed to answer is in terms of which law is she seeking the relief that she seeks to obtain from the court. She raises issues of bias and discrimination but again these can not be pleaded in the air.  They have to be put into the clear perspective of the law.  It is patently clear that application is before the court in terms of non existent law. To that extent the court can not entertain the application which is not backed by any tenet of the law and whose prayer is beyond the court’s jurisdiction. In the result the matter should be struck off the roll with costs.

IT IS ORDERED THAT

Chamber application being improperly before the court it be and is hereby struck off the roll with costs.

Mupungani & Muserere, Applicant’s Legal Practitioners

Honey & Blackenberg, Respondent’s Legal Practitioners