Online Reporter
Yeukai Karengezeka-Chisepo
Court Correspondent
THE Labour Court has dismissed an appeal by former Roman Catholic priest MacDonald Masvosva, who sought to have his dispute with the Bishop of the Diocese of Masvingo treated as a labour matter.
Masvosva challenged an arbitral award that found he failed to prove an employer-employee relationship between himself and the Diocese.
He had also argued that his alleged unfair labour practices were continuing and therefore had not prescribed under the Labour Act.
However, Labour Court judge Justice Garudzo Ziyaduma dismissed the appeal, upholding the arbitrator’s decision that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.
The judgment was handed down on September 16, 2026, following an appeal against an arbitral award issued by Mr E. Muzvidziwa on April 23, 2026.
The court heard that Masvosva was ordained a Roman Catholic priest on December 19, 1998, and was subsequently incardinated into the Catholic Diocese of Masvingo.
From his ordination until October 12, 2005, he performed pastoral duties including celebrating Mass, administering sacraments and managing parish affairs.
In return, he received a monthly stipend of about US$300, together with accommodation and sustenance.
However, on October 11, 2005, the then Bishop of Masvingo, the Rt Rev Michael Bhasera, issued a decree suspending Masvosva from the ministerial priesthood for 10 years.
The suspension followed allegations that Masvosva and six other clergymen had committed what was described as “serious offences of doctrinal matters against Church Law” through their association with a group known as Light of Life or Supa Roma.
The suspension took effect on October 12, 2005. Following his suspension, Masvosva stopped receiving the stipend, accommodation allowance and other material support from the Diocese.
For about 20 years, he and other suspended clergy made representations to successive Apostolic Nuncios, the Zimbabwe Catholic Bishops’ Conference and the Bishops of Masvingo, seeking, among other things, a fair canonical hearing, canonical status and upkeep.
It was only on May 8, 2025, that Masvosva referred the matter to the Masvingo Labour Office, alleging unfair labour practice, unfair suspension and non-payment of salaries or stipend.
Conciliation failed and the matter was subsequently referred to arbitration. The arbitrator found that Masvosva had failed to prove that he was an employee of the Diocese.
He had not produced an employment contract, letter of appointment or payslip, while the Diocese had produced payslips showing that its lay employees were formally employed.
On appeal, Masvosva argued that the arbitrator had erred in finding that there was no employer-employee relationship and that the alleged unfair labour practice was continuing.
Justice Ziyaduma, however, found no error of law in the arbitrator’s decision. The judge noted that the stipend received by Masvosva was different in character from a salary or wage, as it was not paid from a fixed diocesan payroll but was derived from pastoral offerings and contributions from parishioners and congregants.
The court also found that the control exercised over Masvosva by the Bishop was of a spiritual and ecclesiastical nature rather than the operational control ordinarily exercised by an employer over an employee.
Justice Ziyaduma further noted that Masvosva’s conduct over the 20 years following his suspension showed that both parties had treated their relationship as ecclesiastical rather than an employment relationship.
The court said Masvosva’s correspondence during that period referred to canon law and sought canonical remedies, with no reference to the Labour Act or unfair dismissal until 2025.
On prescription, the court held that the 2005 suspension was a single disciplinary act imposed for a fixed period of 10 years and was therefore not a continuing unfair labour practice.
The suspension expired in 2015, and there was no evidence of any decree extending it.
Justice Ziyaduma said that even if Masvosva’s claim had been based on an employment relationship, it would have prescribed after he waited about 20 years before approaching the labour authorities.
The court also clarified the relationship between the Labour Act and canon law, holding that canon law is not domestic Zimbabwean law and therefore does not create a conflict of laws with the Labour Act.
However, the judge stressed that a religious institution cannot use its internal rules to avoid the Labour Act where a genuine employment relationship exists.
In this case, the court found that Masvosva had failed to establish such a relationship.
“For the foregoing reasons, the court is satisfied that the arbitrator did not misdirect himself in law, either in his primary finding that no employer-employee relationship was established between the appellant and the respondent.The appeal must fail in its entirety,” Justice Ziyaduma ruled.
The appeal was dismissed and the arbitrator’s April 23, 2026 award was confirmed.
The court ordered that each party bear its own costs.
