Arnold Sikhumbuzo Mahlangu v CZL Incorporated (Private) Limited

The applicant was an employee of the respondent. Upon reaching retirement age, the parties agreed on retirement benefits in the sum of US$15,900.00. The parties signed a letter confirming that the respondent would pay this amount on or before 14 October 2011. The respondent failed to pay, and the applicant issued summons claiming US$15,900.00, interest at the prescribed rate, and costs on an attorney-client scale. The respondent entered an appearance to defend. The applicant then applied for summary judgment on the basis that the claim was unanswerable and that the respondent was merely buying time. The respondent raised a point in limine challenging jurisdiction and argued on the merits that the amount claimed excluded tax and therefore the applicant was not entitled to the full amount. The applicant filed a replying affidavit (without seeking leave) reducing the claim to US$11,601.92 after tax deductions and including pension deductions.

• Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to determine the matter or whether it constitutes a labour dispute falling under the Labour Act
• Whether the applicant is entitled to summary judgment
• Whether a replying affidavit can be filed in summary judgment proceedings without leave of court
• Whether the respondent's defence raises a bona fide dispute
• Whether the amount claimed should exclude tax

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the applicant. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant US$15,900.00 less the tax due to ZIMRA, plus interest at the prescribed rate from 14 October 2011 to date of full payment. The respondent was ordered to obtain the relevant tax deduction directive within seven days of being served with the order. The respondent was ordered to pay costs of suit on the ordinary scale.

An acknowledgement of debt arising from a terminated employment contract, where the termination itself is not disputed, does not constitute a labour dispute and falls within the jurisdiction of the High Court. The termination of an employment relationship by consent, where parties have agreed on the terms and conditions including financial settlement, removes the matter from the realm of labour disputes as envisaged under section 89(6) of the Labour Act. In summary judgment proceedings, a plaintiff cannot file a replying affidavit without first obtaining leave of court as required by the proviso to Order 10 Rule 67 of the High Court Rules. Where a defendant does not dispute the debt but merely raises issues about deductions (such as tax), this does not constitute a bona fide defence sufficient to resist summary judgment.

The court expressed concern that legal practitioners may not be fully aware of the circumstances under which a further affidavit may be filed in summary judgment proceedings and the procedure thereof. Makoni J quoted extensively from Lincoln Court (Pvt) Ltd v Axis International (Pvt) Ltd HH 54-94 to clarify that the amendment to the proviso to Rule 67 is not a licence to dispense with the rule itself, which prohibits the plaintiff from adducing evidence otherwise than by the affidavit delivered with the notice. The purpose of the amendment is not to enable the plaintiff to reply to the respondent's affidavit, otherwise summary judgment proceedings would be allowed to develop into motion proceedings in the fullest sense. The court noted that had the applicant's papers been in order, it would have considered awarding costs on a higher scale, but the applicant unnecessarily complicated the issue by filing papers without following proper procedure.

This case clarifies the boundary between labour disputes falling under the Labour Court's exclusive jurisdiction and ordinary civil claims arising from employment relationships. It establishes that once an employment relationship has terminated by consent and parties have signed an acknowledgement of debt or similar document setting out termination benefits, any claim based on that document is a civil debt matter within the High Court's jurisdiction, not a labour dispute. The case also reinforces procedural requirements for filing additional affidavits in summary judgment proceedings, emphasizing that leave of court must be sought before filing a replying affidavit.