Charles Warikandwa and Others v Lafarge Cement (Private) Limited

The plaintiffs were former employees of the defendant whose employment contracts stipulated retirement at age 65. The defendant retired them prematurely on 31 August 2001. The plaintiffs approached the High Court and obtained a declaratory order on 10 July 2002 declaring their termination null and void and ordering their reinstatement without loss of benefits. The order also directed that if either party wished to terminate the contracts, they should proceed in terms of the Labour Relations (Retrenchment) Regulations and referred the parties to the Labour Relations Tribunal for calculation of terminal benefits. After nearly 10 years, on 26 April 2012, the plaintiffs approached the Labour Court seeking the same declaratory order, which declined jurisdiction on the basis that the matter was res judicata and that it lacked jurisdiction to issue declaratory orders. The plaintiffs then issued summons in the High Court on 23 October 2012 seeking a fresh declaratory order and payment of 5 years' salary and benefits at current rates in lieu of reinstatement.

• Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to hear a labour dispute concerning enforcement of employment benefits
• Whether the plaintiffs' claim was res judicata given the prior declaratory order of 10 July 2002
• Whether the plaintiffs' claim had prescribed
• Whether the proper forum for determining salary, benefits, and pension claims was the Labour Court or the High Court

The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant were dismissed with costs.

Once the High Court has issued a declaratory order in respect of employment termination, enforcement of that order through claims for salary, benefits, pensions and other labour law entitlements falls within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under section 89 of the Labour Act [Cap 28:01], not the High Court. A party seeking to benefit from a declaratory order must enforce that existing order rather than seek a fresh declaratory order on the same matter, which would be res judicata. The High Court's jurisdiction to issue declaratory orders does not extend to adjudicating substantive labour law matters concerning calculation and payment of employment benefits.

The court observed that the plaintiffs appeared to have misunderstood the nature of the 2002 declaratory order and the proper mechanism for its enforcement. The court noted that paragraph 2 of the 2002 order had specifically contemplated that the Labour Relations Tribunal (now Labour Court) was the proper forum for determining terminal benefits in accordance with pension regulations, reflecting the High Court's recognition of its own jurisdictional limitations in substantive labour law matters. The court also remarked on the unexplained gap of approximately 10 years between the 2002 order and the plaintiffs' subsequent attempts to enforce their rights, though this did not form part of the binding ratio.

This case clarifies the jurisdictional boundaries between the High Court and the Labour Court in Zimbabwe. It establishes that while the High Court has jurisdiction to issue declaratory orders regarding the validity of employment terminations, substantive enforcement of labour law rights such as calculation and payment of salaries, benefits, and pensions falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the Labour Act. The case also illustrates the principle that parties must enforce existing court orders rather than seeking fresh orders for the same relief, and reinforces the doctrines of res judicata and prescription in labour disputes.