Air Zimbabwe (Private) Limited v J.V. Mateko, Elijah Chiripasi and Others

The 2nd to 301st respondents were employed by Air Zimbabwe in various capacities. Following the Supreme Court decision in Nyamande v Zuva Petroleum on 17 July 2015, Air Zimbabwe terminated the employment contracts of the respondents on three months' notice on 31 July 2015, relying on common law rights to terminate employment on notice. The respondents lodged a complaint of unfair dismissal with the Labour Officer, contending the termination violated section 12(4) of the Labour Act. The Labour Officer issued a draft ruling finding the dismissals unfair and null and void, ordering Air Zimbabwe to comply with section 12C(2) of the Act. Air Zimbabwe opposed the confirmation application, arguing the Labour Officer erred in not referring the matter to the Constitutional Court, that some employees were improperly joined, that the declaratory relief was beyond the Labour Officer's jurisdiction, and that the order to comply with section 12C(2) was improper. The Labour Court confirmed the draft ruling with amendments, removing improperly joined parties, eliminating the declaratory language, and substituting an order for reinstatement or damages in lieu thereof.

• What is the extent of the Labour Court's power to amend a Labour Officer's draft ruling in confirmation proceedings under section 93(5) of the Labour Act?
• What constitutes an 'amendment' versus a 'substitution' of a draft ruling in confirmation proceedings?
• Whether the Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction by making substantive changes to the Labour Officer's draft ruling
• Whether the Labour Court and Labour Officers have jurisdiction to grant declaratory orders

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) In confirmation proceedings under section 93(5)(b) of the Labour Act, the Labour Court may amend a draft ruling to correct legal defects and ensure the ruling accords with the law, provided the amendments do not amount to a complete substitution of the Labour Officer's determination; (2) An 'amendment' means an alteration, correction or addition designed to cure a defect or improve a document, but does not include complete replacement or substitution; (3) Neither Labour Officers nor the Labour Court have jurisdiction to grant declaratory orders; (4) A draft ruling by a Labour Officer has no legal force until confirmed by the Labour Court, and confirmation proceedings are in the nature of a review; (5) When a termination of employment is found to be unlawful, the proper remedy is reinstatement, or alternatively, payment of damages in lieu of reinstatement; (6) The Labour Court's power to confirm 'with or without amendments' includes the power to remove improperly joined parties, eliminate ultra vires relief, and add legally appropriate remedies that flow from the Labour Officer's findings.

The Court made observations about the purpose and nature of the confirmation process, emphasizing that Labour Officers are often lay persons with little or no legal experience, which justifies the requirement that their draft rulings be subjected to scrutiny by the specialized Labour Court. The Court also noted that confirmation proceedings involve a hearing where the matter and evidence are placed before the Labour Court for adjudication, and the judicial officer is not merely rubber-stamping the draft ruling but is required to thoroughly investigate the matter. The Court observed that a draft ruling is suspended and interlocutory in nature, with matters remaining open until the Labour Court makes its determination. These observations clarify the institutional design of the labour dispute resolution system and the complementary roles of Labour Officers and the Labour Court.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean labour law as it clarifies the scope of the Labour Court's powers in confirmation proceedings under section 93(5)(b) of the Labour Act. It establishes that the Labour Court can make substantive amendments to draft rulings to ensure legal soundness, provided these constitute corrections and additions rather than complete substitution of the Labour Officer's determination. The judgment reinforces that neither Labour Officers nor the Labour Court have jurisdiction to grant declaratory orders, and confirms that reinstatement (or damages in lieu) is the proper remedy for unlawful dismissal. The case also emphasizes the supervisory and corrective function of confirmation proceedings, recognizing that Labour Officers may lack legal training and their draft rulings require judicial scrutiny before becoming enforceable orders. This promotes legal certainty in employment termination disputes and protects employees' rights while ensuring procedural fairness.