Supreme Court rules against Manpower Development Fund in asset dispute

HARARE  – The Supreme Court of Zimbabwe has handed down a judgement in favour of Tichahleyi Mpofu, a former employee of the Zimbabwe Manpower Development Fund (ZIMDEF), in a dispute over assets.

The court ruled that the ZIMDEF’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) did not have the authority to institute legal proceedings against Mpofu without a resolution from the fund’s board.

The case centered on Mpofu’s refusal to surrender company assets, including a vehicle, laptop, and phone, after his dismissal from employment.

The ZMDF had obtained a court order to reclaim the assets, but Mpofu appealed, arguing that the CEO lacked authority to initiate the legal action.

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Hlekani Mwayera, Tendai Uchena and Felistas Chatukuta upheld Mpofu’s appeal, citing the Zimbabwe Manpower Planning and Development Act and the Public Entities Corporate Governance Act.

The court stated that the CEO’s actions were a nullity, as they contravened the statutory requirements for board authorisation.

“The CEO, as an ex officio member of the board could only derive authority from the board to run the affairs of the public entity. In terms of the Act the board is the responsible authority to run the respondent`s affairs.

“The statutory imperative imposed by law on the CEO to notify the Minister of the absence of the Board, did not clothe the deponent with authority to depose to the impugned founding papers,” the court ruled.

“The preliminary point that the deponent to the founding papers, that is the CEO, did not have the relevant authority as there was no resolution by the Board, ought to have been sustained. In the absence of a Board resolution the actions of the CEO are a nullity.

“This conclusion is dispositive of the appeal. It is therefore, not necessary to allude to the other issues that were raised in this appeal.

“Costs follow the result. We find no basis to depart from this standard. It was for these reasons that we allowed the appeal with costs and issued the order appearing in the first paragraph of this judgement.”