Godfree Gatsi v D Med Healthcare (Pvt) Ltd

The applicant assisted in the formation of the respondent company and became its director together with Johannes Lukas Swart and Albertus Jacobus Hoffman. On 24 July 2018, the applicant was suspended from duty by Trust Jefferson, whom the applicant claimed was a director of a different company. The applicant was removed as director and secretary of the respondent on 1 July 2018, purportedly due to resignation. Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the applicant. The applicant referred the matter to a Labour Officer in terms of s 101(6) of the Labour Act, but subsequently withdrew this referral on 27 August 2021. Pleadings had been filed before the Labour Officer before the withdrawal. Instead of allowing the disciplinary proceedings to continue, the applicant filed an application in the High Court seeking declaratory relief that his removal and suspension were null and void, and claiming outstanding remuneration of US$47,175.00 for the period July 2018 to July 2021.

• Whether the defence of lis pendens applied to bar the current application
• Whether the application was prematurely brought before the court
• Whether the withdrawal of the matter from the Labour Officer reverted the matter back to the disciplinary hearing
• Whether the court could grant declaratory relief and reinstate the applicant before the disciplinary hearing determined whether his employment was lawfully terminated
• Whether the applicant's conduct amounted to an abuse of court process

1. The preliminary points raised by the respondent succeeded. 2. The application was dismissed with costs.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) For the defence of lis pendens to succeed, there must be another pending matter between the same parties, on the same cause of action, and in respect of the same subject matter. (2) Withdrawal of a matter from a Labour Officer reverts the dispute back to the original disciplinary proceedings, which remain pending. (3) A court will not grant declaratory relief or reinstatement of an employee before the completion of pending disciplinary proceedings that will determine whether the employment was lawfully terminated. (4) The principle of finality in litigation requires that once a suit has been commenced before a competent tribunal, it must be brought to its conclusion before that tribunal and should not be replicated in another forum. (5) Due process requires that disciplinary proceedings be allowed to take their course, and courts should not prematurely intervene before such processes reach their conclusion.

The court observed that the respondent cannot be faulted for alleging the applicant was bent on abusing court process, noting that the applicant was "trotting from one forum to the other without finality in each process." The court also noted that the applicant's reasons for withdrawing the matter from the Labour Officer (realizing it had no jurisdiction to grant a declaratur) were particularly problematic given that it was the applicant who took the matter there in the first place. While finding merit in the claim of abuse of court process, the court observed that costs on a punitive scale were not justified in this instance.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean law (note: this is a Zimbabwean case, not South African) as it reinforces the principles of lis pendens and the importance of allowing due process to take its course in labour disputes. It emphasizes that litigants cannot forum-shop or prematurely approach the courts before exhausting proper administrative and disciplinary processes. The case illustrates that where disciplinary proceedings are pending and involve the same parties, cause of action, and subject matter, a parallel court application will be barred on the basis of lis pendens. It also confirms that withdrawal of a matter from one forum (such as a Labour Officer) reverts the dispute back to the original process (disciplinary hearing) rather than opening the door to immediate court intervention. The judgment serves as a warning against abuse of court process through repeatedly initiating proceedings in different forums without allowing each process to reach finality.