Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro-Chief Court Reporter
A US$2,50 dispute has ballooned to a US$327 183 legal battle between Chikomba Rural District Council and three former employees whose dismissal saga has dragged through the country’s labour courts for over six years.
The council is now appealing a High Court order allowing Lawrence Magwiroto, Rosa Chikwama and Martha Mudzana to register and enforce an arbitral award granting them hundreds of thousands of dollars in salaries, benefits and other dues.
The latest battle centres on an order issued by the High Court in Harare on June 16, 2026.
The judge granted the workers’ application to register an award issued by arbitrator Mr Owen Hungwe on January 22, 2026.
Under the order, Chikomba RDC must pay Mr Magwiroto US$135 577 plus US$20 336 in union dues, Ms Chikwama US$76 800 plus US$11 520 in union dues, and Ms Mudzana US$66 360 plus US$16 590 in service charges.
The combined figure is US$327 183.
The order states: “The application for the registration of the arbitration award per Hungwe O dated 22 January 2026, be and is hereby granted.”
It further orders the council to pay the three applicants their respective salaries and benefits and directs that costs of the suit be paid by the first respondent.
But Chikomba RDC has once again gone on appeal.
The council argues that the High Court failed to determine whether registration and enforcement of the arbitral award would be contrary to public policy.
Its first ground of appeal states:
“The court a quo misdirected itself when it omitted to determine the issue of whether the recognition or enforcement of the arbitral award would be contrary to the public policy of Zimbabwe.”
The council also attacks the basis of the salary award, arguing that the three former employees were not employed by the local authority during the period for which the salaries and benefits were awarded.
Its second ground states: “The court a quo (lower court) erred in law when it granted relief to the respondents even though the arbitral award concerned purported to award salaries and benefits to the respondents who were not employed by the appellant during the period in respect of which those salaries and benefits were awarded.”
The latest appeal is the newest chapter in a dispute dating back to 2020.
The dispute began after Mr Magwiroto, Ms Chikwama, Ms Mudzana and another employee, Ms Violet Mukombo, were dismissed by Chikomba RDC following disciplinary proceedings over alleged financial irregularities.
The allegations concerned the recording and handling of revenue collected from ratepayers.
In Ms Magwiroto’s case, the council alleged financial prejudice of about ZWL$50, then roughly US$2,50, and maintained that the discrepancies amounted to fraudulent conduct.
The workers challenged their dismissal.
Mr Magwiroto successfully appealed before the exemptions committee of the national employment council for rural district councils, which ordered his reinstatement without loss of salary.
The other workers also obtained relief in the labour dispute.
Chikomba RDC challenged the decisions before the Labour Court. It lost.
The Labour Court dismissed the council’s appeal with costs.
In Mr Magwiroto’s case, Justice Lawrence Murasi found that the evidence did not establish the alleged fraudulent misrepresentation.
The court noted that although there were discrepancies between figures recorded by Mr Magwiroto and amounts subsequently banked, the correct amounts were deposited through the EcoCash biller code.
The council was also unable to establish that Mr Magwiroto had accessed the money he had receipted or had acted with the alleged fraudulent intention.
The council subsequently pursued further legal avenues, including attempts to challenge the labour decisions before the Supreme Court.
Those proceedings encountered procedural setbacks, while the workers continued pursuing the financial consequences of their reinstatement.
Their claims grew as the dispute dragged on.
The Zimbabwe Rural District Councils Workers Union pursued outstanding salaries, benefits and other employment-related dues on their behalf.
At one stage in 2025, the council reportedly offered the workers about US$2 000 to settle the matter and avoid reinstatement.
The offer was rejected. But by then, the dispute had attracted attention well beyond the council’s boardroom and the labour courts.
The disagreement eventually attracted the direct attention of the Ministry of Local Government and Public Works.
Local Government Minister Daniel Garwe wrote to the Chikomba RDC chairman on October 30, 2025, directing the council to comply with the Labour Court ruling involving Mr Magwiroto.
The ministry’s intervention added another layer to an already protracted dispute, bringing the supervising ministry directly into the implementation of the court ruling.
The intervention also underscored the extent to which the dispute had moved beyond an ordinary disagreement between an employer and former employees, with the responsible ministry pressing the local authority to give effect to a court decision.
Despite the ministerial intervention, the dispute continued through the process that eventually produced the arbitration award now at the centre of the latest High Court appeal.
The matter proceeded to arbitration.
Mr Hungwe subsequently issued the January 22, 2026 award which the workers took to the High Court for registration.
That application was granted in June. The council’s latest appeal, therefore, shifts the dispute to two central questions.
First, whether enforcement of the arbitral award would offend public policy.
Second, whether the workers could lawfully receive salaries and benefits for periods during which, according to the council, they were not employees of Chikomba RDC.
For the three former employees, the High Court order represents another significant step in a long-running fight that began with their dismissal.
For the council, it creates a potential US$327 183 liability, on top of years of litigation costs.
And so, a dispute that began with an alleged US$2,50 discrepancy has evolved into one of the more costly employment battles facing the rural authority. The latest appeal means the six-year saga is not over yet.
