Andrew Machaya v Farm and City Centre

The respondent (Farm and City Centre) employed the appellant (Andrew Machaya) as a personnel manager. In 2003, the respondent suspended the appellant on allegations of misconduct. A disciplinary hearing was aborted when it was discovered that the code of conduct under which the appellant was charged was inapplicable. No determination was made regarding the misconduct allegations. In June 2000, the appellant complained to the Ministry of Labour about unlawful suspension and unfair labour practices. A labour relations officer ordered compensation in August 2001. The senior labour relations officer ordered reinstatement or damages in November 2003. The respondent withdrew its appeal against this decision on 26 March 2003 and paid the appellant Z$162,516.19 in arrears. An arbitrator subsequently awarded thirty months salary in lieu of reinstatement and back pay. The respondent appealed to the Labour Court, which set aside the arbitrator's award and directed the matter be set down for quantification. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

• Whether the appellant was lawfully suspended from employment
• Whether the appellant was validly dismissed from employment
• Whether the labour officers, senior labour officer, and arbitrator had jurisdiction to determine the matter given the invalidity of the suspension and dismissal
• Whether the contract of employment between the appellant and respondent remained extant and binding
• Whether damages and reinstatement are appropriate remedies where there was no valid dismissal

1. The appeal was allowed with costs. 2. The judgment of the Labour Court was set aside. 3. The proceedings before the labour officer, senior labour officer, and arbitrator were set aside.

Where an employee is suspended under an inapplicable code of conduct, such suspension is void ab initio. Where statutory regulations prescribe the procedure for dismissal (such as S.I. 371/85 requiring ministerial approval), failure to obtain such approval means no valid dismissal has occurred. In the absence of a valid suspension or dismissal, the contract of employment remains extant and binding on both parties. Labour officers and arbitrators lack jurisdiction to determine matters involving damages or reinstatement where there has been no valid dismissal. All proceedings conducted on the basis of an invalid suspension or dismissal are nullities and must be set aside.

The Court observed that the issue of employment status was consistently raised by the appellant throughout the various proceedings, indicating that this was not an "afterthought" as found by the Labour Court. The Court noted that neither the labour relations officer, senior labour relations officer, nor the arbitrator made any determination on the fundamental issue of the appellant's employment status, despite it being a crucial matter that required resolution. The Court also commented that the question of damages and reinstatement does not arise where there has been no proper dismissal in the first place.

This case establishes important principles in Zimbabwean labour law regarding the validity of suspensions and dismissals, and the jurisdictional limits of labour tribunals. It reinforces that where statutory procedures for dismissal are prescribed (such as under S.I. 371/85), failure to comply with those procedures renders the dismissal void ab initio. The case also demonstrates that where there is no valid dismissal, the employment contract remains in force, and labour tribunals lack jurisdiction to award damages or reinstatement. The judgment emphasizes the importance of procedural compliance in employment terminations and the consequences of failing to follow prescribed statutory procedures.