Fidelis Munyoro-Chief Court Reporter
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Labour Court cannot grant declaratory orders unless expressly empowered to do so by legislation, overturning a judgment that had declared dismissed Masvingo City Council Engineer Tawanda Gozo to remain an employee after the Local Government Board refused to approve his dismissal.
In his judgment Justice Happias Zhou said the Labour Court lacked original jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief because neither the Labour Act nor any other enactment expressly conferred that power on it.
The court allowed the council’s appeal, set aside the Labour Court judgment and substituted an order withholding jurisdiction, with no order as to costs.
The ruling underpins the statutory limits of the Labour Court while preserving the High Court’s authority to issue declarations of legal rights, including in employment disputes.
“The Labour Court has no exclusive jurisdiction or original jurisdiction to grant a declaratory order in labour matters,” Justice Zhou held.
The dispute arose after Eng Gozo, the council’s director of engineering services, was dismissed following disciplinary proceedings over allegations concerning the deterioration in the quantity and quality of municipal water supplies.
Under section 123(1)(c) of the Urban Councils Act, the dismissal of a senior council official requires approval from the Local Government Board.
In September 2022, the board’s chairman refused to approve Eng Gozo’s dismissal and directed his reinstatement with full benefits. The council successfully challenged that decision in the High Court, which ordered the chairman to determine only whether to approve or reject the dismissal.
On July 2, 2024, the chairman again refused approval but did not order reinstatement.
Eng Gozo reported for duty on August 14, 2024, believing he remained employed, but alleged that he was sent home after two days. The council maintained that his dismissal remained effective.
He approached the Labour Court seeking a declaration that the board’s refusal meant he remained an employee.
The court ruled in his favour, relying on earlier precedence.
The council appealed, arguing that section 89 of the Labour Act did not empower the Labour Court to issue declaratory orders.
Representing the council, Advocate Tawanda Zhuwarara argued that the Labour Court, as a creature of statute, could exercise only powers expressly conferred upon it.
Eng Gozo’s lawyer, Professor Lovemore Madhuku, countered that the Constitution and section 89 of the Labour Act empowered the specialised court to determine employment disputes, including applications for declaratory relief.
Rejecting that argument, the Supreme Court said the central issue was whether Parliament had authorised the Labour Court to grant the particular remedy sought, not whether the dispute concerned employment.
Section 172(2) of the Constitution provides that the Labour Court exercises jurisdiction over labour matters as conferred by an Act of Parliament. It does not automatically grant the court every power available to superior courts.
Justice Zhou contrasted section 89 of the Labour Act with section 14 of the High Court Act, which expressly empowers the High Court to determine existing, future or contingent rights and obligations.
“Parliament plainly knew how to confer a declaratory power when it wished to do so,” he observed.
The court also rejected the argument that the Labour Act prevailed over the High Court Act, finding no conflict between their provisions.
It disagreed with the approach adopted in the decided case of Ming Chang Sino Africa Mining Investments (Pvt) Ltd v Hui Zhang & Ors SC 39/26, which had treated the Labour Act as prevailing over the High Court Act on declaratory relief in labour matters.
Importantly, the Supreme Court did not decide whether the board’s refusal to approve Eng Gozo’s dismissal automatically meant he remained employed. Justice Zhou expressly left that question open for determination by a court with proper jurisdiction.
The ruling, therefore, does not resolve Eng Gozo’s employment status or endorse the council’s substantive position. It establishes that the remedy he sought was beyond the Labour Court’s powers.
For employers and employees, the judgment underscores the importance of selecting the correct forum and remedy when challenging employment decisions.
The court also noted conflicting Supreme Court decisions on the issue, saying the matter ultimately required clarification by the Constitutional Court.
The appeal was allowed, the Labour Court judgment set aside, and no costs were awarded in either court.
