The applicant was employed as the Director of Housing by the Municipality of Chinhoyi, a senior employee position. He was dismissed from employment on allegations of incompetence and maladministration. The applicant approached the High Court complaining of procedural irregularities in the dismissal process. The contract of employment was governed by the Urban Councils Act [Chapter 29:15], specifically section 140 which provides for conditions of service and termination of employment of senior employees. The litigation commenced in 1999 before the Labour Relations Amendment Act 17 of 2002, which purported to confer exclusive jurisdiction on the labour court. The applicant alleged he was not accorded a chance to be heard as the hearing proceeded without his presence through no fault of his own. He further complained that after conducting irregular proceedings, the 1st respondent nullified the initial proceedings but reconstituted the same members to institute fresh proceedings on the same facts and allegations, leading to concerns about bias.
The court ordered: (1) That the proceedings be stayed pending joinder of the chairman of the disciplinary committee; (2) That the applicant shall take necessary steps to join the chairman within one month of commencement of the 1st High Court term for 2005, failing which the proceedings are permanently stayed; (3) Costs shall be costs in the cause.
Failure to join a party to proceedings does not constitute a fatal procedural irregularity under Rule 87, which requires that procedural defects be remedied and the matter determined on the merits. However, where the conduct of a decision-maker (such as a chairman of a disciplinary committee) is directly in issue, principles of fairness require that such person be joined to the proceedings to have an opportunity to respond to allegations of misconduct or bias before the matter can be determined.
The court observed that it would be "grossly unfair and unjust" to proceed to determine allegations of misconduct against a disciplinary committee chairman without affording that person a chance to account for their alleged conduct. This reflects the court's commitment to natural justice and audi alteram partem (hear the other side) principles even in procedural matters. The court also noted in passing the effect of the Labour Relations Amendment Act 17 of 2002 in purporting to confer exclusive jurisdiction on the labour court, though this did not apply to the case at hand which commenced before the Act.
This case illustrates the application of procedural rules in Zimbabwean labour and administrative law, particularly the interplay between Rule 257 (requiring service on decision-makers in review proceedings) and Rule 87 (dealing with joinder and non-joinder of parties). It demonstrates that while non-joinder is not necessarily fatal, courts will ensure procedural fairness by requiring joinder of parties whose conduct is directly in issue, particularly in disciplinary proceedings where bias is alleged. The case also confirms High Court jurisdiction over labour matters that commenced before the 2002 amendments to labour legislation.