Chikomba Rural District Council v Herbert Pasipanodya

The respondent was employed by the appellant as its Chief Executive Officer. The contract of employment provided that the respondent's conduct would be regulated through the Staff Code of Conduct, the Labour Relations Act, and other related Statutory Instruments. In December 2006, the respondent was suspended from employment without benefits in terms of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations Statutory Instrument 15 of 2006 ("the National Employment Code of Conduct"). The respondent appeared before a disciplinary committee facing eight charges of misconduct. He was found guilty of six charges and dismissed from employment. The respondent applied to the Labour Court for review, arguing that the appellant should have conducted disciplinary proceedings in terms of its own registered code of conduct, not the National Employment Code of Conduct. The Labour Court set aside the dismissal and reinstated the respondent. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

• Whether an employer with a registered code of conduct was entitled to discipline and dismiss an employee using the National Employment Code of Conduct instead of its registered code
• Whether a contractual agreement between parties to use the National Employment Code of Conduct could override statutory provisions requiring use of a registered code of conduct
• Whether the Labour Court erred in setting aside the dismissal on the basis of procedural irregularity
• The interpretation of section 12B of the Labour Act and section 5 of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations, 2006

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Where an employer has a registered employment code of conduct, the termination of an employee's contract of employment must be done in terms of that registered code. The National Employment Code of Conduct can only be invoked in the absence of a registered employment code. Any agreement between employer and employee that purports to allow use of the National Employment Code of Conduct where a registered code exists is contrary to law and null and void. Statutory provisions override contractual agreements between parties where those agreements are inconsistent with the statute. A dismissal conducted in terms of the National Employment Code of Conduct where a registered code exists is null and void.

The Court noted that "statutory provisions override the common law goes without saying", reinforcing the supremacy of statutory law over contractual arrangements in the employment context. While the Court did not need to address the merits of the disciplinary charges (the respondent was found guilty of six of eight charges), the Court's approach suggests that procedural compliance is a threshold requirement that must be met regardless of the substantive evidence of misconduct.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean labour law as it clarifies the mandatory hierarchy of disciplinary procedures under the Labour Act. It establishes that where an employer has a registered employment code of conduct, that code must be used for disciplinary proceedings and dismissals, and the National Employment Code of Conduct cannot be invoked as an alternative. The case reinforces the principle that statutory provisions cannot be contracted out of by agreement between employer and employee, and that compliance with proper procedural requirements is essential for a fair dismissal. This decision provides important guidance on the interpretation of section 12B of the Labour Act and the relationship between registered codes of conduct and the National Employment Code of Conduct.