High Court strikes off former employee’s application against Empowerment Bank

HARARE – The High Court of Zimbabwe has declined to grant a court declaration sought by former Empowerment Bank employee, Wellington Zengeza, who challenged the lawfulness of his dismissal in 2019.

Justice Maxwell Takuva, presiding over the matter, ruled that the dispute falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, a specialised court established to handle employment-related matters.

Zengeza had approached the High Court seeking a declaration that his dismissal on December 12, 2019, was unlawful, and consequently requested reinstatement without loss of salary and benefits.

Alternatively, he sought damages in lieu of reinstatement, with quantification to be determined by the Labour Court if necessary.

In his application, Zengeza acknowledged that the “genus and impetus” of his claim fell under the Labour Court’s domain. He, however, stated he was informed that the Labour Court lacked the jurisdiction to grant a declaration of rights.

Empowerment Bank opposed the application, raising two preliminary points: lack of jurisdiction of the High Court and res judicata (a matter already decided).

Justice Takuva, in his judgment, upheld the respondent’s argument on jurisdiction. The judge cited that the core issue was the alleged unlawful termination of an employment contract, a matter explicitly governed by the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01].

Citing constitutional provisions and previous Supreme Court decisions such as Stanley Nhari v Robert S Mugabe and ors SC161/20, Justice Takuva reiterated that the High Court’s jurisdiction in purely employment matters has been restricted, with the Labour Court being the designated forum for such disputes.

The judgment highlighted that even if the High Court were to issue the declaratory order sought by Zengeza, its implementation, particularly regarding reinstatement or the quantification of damages, would ultimately fall under the purview of the Labour Court.

The court, further, noted that the matter had previously gone through the labour dispute resolution system, reaching the Supreme Court.

While the Supreme Court had set aside a Labour Court decision substituting a Labour Officer’s ruling, the Labour Officer’s original ruling remained unchallenged.

Justice Takuva pointed out that the Labour Amendment Act No 11 of 2023 contains transitional provisions that offer a potential remedy for Zengeza concerning draft rulings made under the repealed section 93(5) of the Act.

Justice Takuva dismissed the applicant’s contention that he no longer had a remedy, stating that the application for a declaratur appeared to be a “guise” given the substantive relief sought, which included reinstatement and damages.

Consequently, the High Court declined jurisdiction, finding that it was not a proper case for a declarator and that its jurisdiction over such employment matters was expressly excluded.

“It is common cause that this is a purely labour matter wherein the applicant is effectively seeking an order setting aside the termination of his employment contract on 12 December 2019,” the court ruled.

“Respondent can only challenge such termination in terms of the Act. This Court has no jurisdiction to determine the applicant’s complaint that his contract was terminated unlawfully.

“This Court’s jurisdiction to deal with purely employment matters having been restricted by the Constitution which created the Labour Court as a specialised Court to handle employment matters.”

The application was struck off the roll, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

T Mupamhadzi of Matsikidze Attorney at Law represented the applicant, while M Kondongwe of Dube Manikai and Hwacha acted for the respondent.