Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
Former J&J Transport employee Shelton Ziyambi has scored a major legal victory after the Supreme Court cleared the way for him to pursue an appeal against his dismissal over allegations of gross negligence and theft of 194 litres of diesel, breathing new life into a case previously struck off by the Labour Court.
Ziyambi secured the green light to challenge the outcome of his disciplinary proceedings directly before the Labour Court, following a concession by his former employer’s lawyer, who acknowledged that a recent Supreme Court judgment had settled the contentious legal question at the heart of the dispute.
The victory reverses the setback suffered by Ziyambi on November 28, 2024, when the Labour Court refused to entertain his appeal, ruling that it had been prematurely brought before it because he had not first approached a labour officer.
Ziyambi had challenged the interpretation of section 101(5) of the Labour Act, as amended by the Labour Amendment Act No. 11 of 2023, maintaining that he was entitled to approach the Labour Court directly without first exhausting the labour officer route.
J&J Transport, however, insisted that the statutory process required the matter to be dealt with by a labour officer before the Labour Court could be approached.
In dismissing the appeal at the time, Justice Lilian Kudya held that the wording of the disputed provision required an aggrieved party to approach a labour officer first.
“It is in keeping with the spirit of this section, that this court was convinced that the matter was improperly before it, so the matter was struck off, by the order of 28 November 2024,” she ruled.
Aggrieved by the decision, Ziyambi escalated the matter to the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn the procedural barrier that had prevented his appeal from being heard.
During Tuesday’s proceedings, the Supreme Court allowed his appeal by consent, with his lawyer, Mr T C Nemadziwa, appearing for Ziyambi and Mr Brian Kashangura representing J&J Transport.
Mr Kashangura conceded to the appeal, citing a recent Supreme Court judgment that addressed the same legal question and fundamentally clarified the route available to parties challenging disciplinary decisions made under registered employment codes of conduct.
“My concession is informed by the recent Supreme Court judgment in Delta Beverages (Private) Limited v Mufaro Muchetu, SC 52/26,” Mr Kashangura said, explaining the basis for his client’s position.
The judgment, delivered on August 28, 2026, settled the dispute over whether an aggrieved party must first approach a labour officer before appealing to the Labour Court.
In that case, Delta Beverages challenged a Labour Court ruling allowing its former machine operator, Mufaro Muchetu, to appeal directly against his dismissal following disciplinary proceedings over an alcohol-related offence.
The company argued that Muchetu was required to approach a labour officer under section 101(5) before invoking the Labour Court’s appellate jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court rejected that argument, holding that section 92D of the Labour Act provides a direct right of appeal to the Labour Court against determinations made under registered employment codes.
The court distinguished that remedy from section 101(5), which allows an aggrieved party to approach a labour officer within 30 days after disciplinary proceedings for conciliation and the dispute-resolution process contemplated under section 93.
Notably, the court found that the two provisions establish complementary remedies rather than a compulsory sequence of procedures.
Section 101 (5) does not require parties to exhaust the labour officer route before approaching the Labour Court, nor does it impliedly repeal section 92D.
The ruling has significant implications for employers and employees, confirming that disciplinary outcomes can be challenged directly in the Labour Court without an intervening labour officer process.
For Ziyambi, the development removes the procedural obstacle that halted his appeal in 2024. However, the Supreme Court’s decision does not determine whether his dismissal was justified or resolve the allegations of gross negligence and diesel theft.
His substantive challenge can now proceed through the appropriate legal process, where the merits of the disciplinary decision may be examined.
