Davies Granite (Private) Limited v Moses Ndlovu and Honourable Justice Mercy Moya-Matshanga N.O.

The applicant, Davies Granite (Private) Limited, sought to review a decision of the Labour Court granted on 17 July 2013. However, the applicant had simultaneously filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in terms of Section 92F(2) of the Labour Act. The respondent raised points in limine challenging the High Court's jurisdiction to hear the review application while an appeal process was pending or available.

• Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review decisions of the Labour Court where the enabling statute provides for an appellate court
• Whether an applicant must exhaust domestic remedies provided for in the Labour Act before seeking review
• Whether an applicant can simultaneously pursue both review proceedings in the High Court and appeal proceedings before the Supreme Court
• Whether Section 124 of the Labour Act prohibits multiple proceedings in respect of the same matter

The application for review was dismissed with costs. The court upheld the point in limine that the applicant cannot be allowed to engage in forum shopping by pursuing both review and appeal proceedings simultaneously.

Where an applicant has instituted appeal proceedings in respect of a Labour Court decision, the applicant cannot simultaneously pursue review proceedings in the High Court concerning the same decision, as this would place the courts in improper competition with each other. Section 124 of the Labour Act prohibits multiple proceedings in respect of the same matter and requires parties to advise the second court of earlier proceedings. A litigant must elect between available remedies and pursue them one step at a time, rather than engaging in forum shopping by pursuing multiple remedies simultaneously.

The court expressly declined to address the contentious issue of whether the High Court has inherent review powers over decisions of the Labour Court where the enabling statute provides for an appellate court. Moyo J noted: 'without delving into the contentious issue of whether or not the High Court has review powers on the decisions of the Labour Court...' This suggests the court left this broader jurisdictional question open for determination in a more appropriate case.

This case reinforces the principle against forum shopping and multiple proceedings in Zimbabwean labour law. It establishes that litigants must choose between available remedies (review or appeal) and cannot pursue both simultaneously in different courts. The judgment emphasizes the importance of Section 124 of the Labour Act in preventing parallel proceedings concerning the same matter, thereby avoiding conflicting decisions from different courts and promoting judicial economy and finality in labour disputes.