Charity Madyambudzi and Shadreck Mugabe v Director General N.O and Others

The applicants were members of the Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO), with the first applicant holding the rank of Provincial Intelligence Officer and the second a Divisional Intelligence Officer. They worked in the Material Resource Management Division. On 5 October 2020, they were transferred to different branches after raising queries about finance and procurement procedures, alleging unethical and corrupt practices. After seeking clarification on their redeployment, misconduct charges were levelled against them for disobeying a lawful instruction and absenting themselves from duty without leave. They were suspended on half salary on 15 April 2021. A disciplinary hearing was scheduled for 9 June 2021. On that date, the applicants raised preliminary issues through their legal practitioner. The Disciplinary Committee adjourned to 7 July 2021 for a ruling on the points in limine. Before the ruling was delivered, the applicants filed an application for review in the High Court, aborting the disciplinary proceedings.

• Whether the application for review was prematurely brought before the High Court
• Whether applicants were required to exhaust domestic remedies before approaching the court
• Whether the 21-day period for instituting disciplinary proceedings had lapsed
• Whether the suspension on half salary was irregular and not provided for in the Code of Conduct
• Whether the deponent to the opposing affidavit had authority to depose to the affidavit
• Whether applicants sought an incompetent relief (declaratur in a review application)

1. The application for review was struck off the roll. 2. The matter was remitted to the Disciplinary Committee for continuation of the proceedings that had been commenced before it. 3. The applicants were ordered to bear the respondents' costs.

Parties to workplace disciplinary proceedings must exhaust domestic remedies and allow workplace tribunals to complete their proceedings and make rulings on issues raised before them, before approaching the High Court for review. Where a Disciplinary Committee is seized with preliminary issues and has adjourned to deliver a ruling by consent of the parties, an application for review filed before that ruling is delivered is premature and will be struck off the roll. The principle that domestic remedies must be exhausted before approaching courts applies with particular force in labour disputes, unless good reasons are shown for making an early approach to the court. The mere fact that the High Court has wide-ranging review powers does not justify abandoning workplace proceedings in midstream without justification.

The court observed that if the matter had involved criminal proceedings, the applicants' conduct would be akin to an accused person seeking review of unterminated proceedings in an inferior court or tribunal. While acknowledging that the High Court's review powers under Part IV of the High Court of Zimbabwe Act are extensive and can be exercised at any stage of proceedings, the court noted (citing Constable Jani v ZRP Officer in Charge Mamina and Others HH 550/15) that the High Court will only exercise its review powers of unterminated proceedings in exceptional cases where grave injustice might otherwise result. The court also noted that the conduct of workplace disciplinary proceedings would be thrown into disarray if these could be abandoned in midstream merely on the basis that the court has wide-ranging powers of review.

This case reinforces the critical principle in Zimbabwean labour law that parties must exhaust domestic remedies, particularly workplace disciplinary procedures, before approaching the courts for relief. It establishes that litigants cannot abandon proceedings in a domestic tribunal midstream and rush to court on review without justifiable reasons. The case serves as an important reminder that the High Court's extensive review powers should not be used to circumvent or bypass workplace dispute resolution mechanisms. It emphasizes that workplace disciplinary proceedings should not be thrown into disarray by premature court applications, and that agreed-upon processes (such as adjournments for rulings) must be respected unless exceptional circumstances exist.