AFM In Zimbabwe v Josiah Garamukanwa

The respondent was a former pastor of the Apostolic Faith Mission (AFM) of Zimbabwe Church, deployed at Masiyirwa Assembly in Zvimba under the Harare West Province. He was allocated a church house as part of his employment benefits. He was charged with misconduct and dismissed from his position. On 29 November 2013, he was asked to vacate the church house but refused to do so. The respondent had lodged an appeal against his dismissal with the Labour Court, which was subsequently dismissed. During proceedings, the respondent exhibited signs of mental instability, including throwing stones at persons trying to serve him with notices and screaming in court. A curator ad litem was appointed to investigate his mental state. The curator discovered the respondent had been arrested for culpable homicide and a magistrate had ordered medical examination under s 26 of the Mental Health Act, which revealed mental illness.

• Whether a former employee who has been dismissed retains the right to occupy company property (church house) while challenging his dismissal
• Whether the applicant proved the requirements for a rei vindicatio claim
• What procedures should be followed when a litigant exhibits signs of mental incapacity during proceedings
• What is the role and function of a curator ad litem appointed for a mentally incapacitated litigant

1. The respondent and all those claiming ownership through him must vacate the applicant's church house at Masiyirwa Assembly, Zvimba, within 14 days of the order, failing which the Sheriff of the High Court is authorized and directed to evict the respondent and all those claiming occupation through him, with the assistance of the Officer in Charge, Zvimba Police Station, if necessary. 2. The respondent shall pay the costs of the application.

Upon termination of an employment contract (whether by dismissal or suspension), all benefits and rights flowing from that contract cease immediately, including the right to possess or occupy employer property such as company houses or vehicles. A former employee has no legal entitlement to continue holding employer property pending resolution of a labour dispute challenging the dismissal. In a rei vindicatio claim, once the owner proves ownership, possession by the defendant, and lack of consent, the onus shifts to the possessor to prove any right of retention. Where a litigant exhibits mental incapacity during proceedings, a curator ad litem may be appointed under rule 249 or common law to represent the incapacitated litigant; the curator must investigate the litigant's mental state, file a report with the court, and actively advance arguments in favor of the litigant's case. A curator appointed after proceedings have commenced may ratify steps taken before the appointment.

The court expressed frustration that despite repeated judicial pronouncements on the law regarding employer property and dismissed employees, courts continue to be 'swamped with rei vindicatio applications by former employers seeking to reclaim their properties,' suggesting this legal principle has 'generally gone unheeded.' The court also provided detailed guidance on the proper role of a curator ad litem, emphasizing that the curator is an officer of the court who must assist in determination of the matter and is expected to represent the incapacitated litigant rather than assume a neutral or objective position. The court noted that a curator's powers are limited to the specific case and investigations required, with no general power over the person or assets of the litigant beyond what is relevant to the proceedings.

This case reinforces established South African and Zimbabwean jurisprudence on the automatic termination of employment benefits upon dismissal or suspension. It confirms that employees cannot retain possession of employer property merely by challenging their dismissal in Labour Courts. The case also provides important guidance on the appointment and role of curators ad litem when litigants exhibit mental incapacity during proceedings, emphasizing that curators must file reports, investigate mental state, and actively represent the incapacitated litigant's interests rather than maintain neutrality. The judgment serves as a warning that courts continue to be 'swamped' with rei vindicatio applications that could be avoided if former employees understood their legal position regarding company property upon termination.