Godfrey Katerere and Others v Triangle (Pvt) Ltd and Others

The applicants were employees dismissed by the 1st respondent (Triangle (Pvt) Ltd) following disciplinary hearings. They challenged their dismissals by way of appeal and review to the Labour Court at Gweru. On 12 December 2016, the applicants applied to the Labour Court under s 92E(3) of the Labour Act for a stay of execution to prevent eviction from company accommodation. Some 12 days later, on 22 December 2016, the 1st respondent issued summons in the Chiredzi Magistrates Court (cases GL 873/16, GL 874/16 and GL 875/16) seeking eviction of the applicants. The Magistrates Court granted summary judgment in favour of the 1st respondent despite the pending Labour Court application. On 6 July 2017, the Labour Court granted the stay of execution in favour of the applicants. However, the Magistrate at Chiredzi appeared to disregard this order and granted leave to execute pending appeal. On 12 August 2017, the Messenger of Court arrived with a writ for eviction within 48 hours. The applicants filed an urgent chamber application seeking a stay of execution and suspension of the writ pending determination of their appeal and review proceedings before the High Court.

• Whether the matter satisfied the requirements for urgency
• Whether the Labour Court order of 6 July 2017 granting stay of execution was valid and operative
• Whether the applicants met the requirements for an interlocutory interdict (prima facie right, well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm, no other satisfactory remedy, and balance of convenience)
• Whether the Magistrate erred in dismissing the defence of lis alibi pendens
• Whether the multiplicity of proceedings in different courts over the same dispute constituted an abuse of process
• Whether the proceedings in the Magistrates Court were tainted with irregularities warranting review

The court granted the interim relief sought by the applicants, as amended to conform to Form 29C of the High Court Rules 1971 and with deletion of the order for costs. This entailed a stay of execution of the Magistrates Court orders, stay of proceedings in cases GL 873/16, GL 874/16 and GL 875/16, and suspension of the writ of execution pending the return date.

A court order remains valid and operative until it is set aside or successfully appealed against, and parallel proceedings instituted in another court in disregard of an extant court order constitute an abuse of process. Where an applicant can demonstrate a prima facie right (even if open to some doubt), a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm, absence of other satisfactory remedy, and that the balance of convenience favours granting relief, an interlocutory interdict should be granted. A party who believes a court lacked jurisdiction to grant an order must challenge that order through proper legal channels rather than instituting parallel proceedings in another court to circumvent it. The High Court has inherent powers to regulate its own proceedings and prevent abuse of process, which should be exercised judiciously and in the interest of justice.

The court made several important non-binding observations: (1) it expressed concern that some legal practitioners invent their own versions of Form 29C instead of using the form provided in the Rules, wasting time on procedural objections; (2) it noted that urgent chamber applications must be accompanied by a provisional order in Form 29C as required by Rule 247(1)(a) of the High Court Rules 1971; (3) it commented that the multiplicity of proceedings in this case "epitomizes the dangers inherent in the multiplicity of proceedings in different courts over basically the same dispute" and that "this is clearly undesirable"; (4) it described the overall situation as "apparent madness bedevilling this dispute" and stated the court needed to "draw a line in the sand and stop the apparent madness"; (5) it expressed doubts about whether the Magistrate properly disregarded the defence of lis alibi pendens and turned a blind eye to the Labour Court order based on a misconception that it needed to be registered first; and (6) it noted that the applicants' allegations of bias or corruption against the Magistrate formed part of the basis for their review application, though the court did not definitively rule on these serious allegations at the interim stage.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean jurisprudence for several reasons: (1) it addresses the dangers of multiplicity of proceedings in different courts over the same dispute and characterizes such conduct as an abuse of court process; (2) it clarifies the effect and enforceability of Labour Court orders granted under s 92E(3) of the Labour Act pending appeals, holding that such orders remain operative until set aside or appealed against and need not be registered to have effect; (3) it reaffirms the requirements for interlocutory interdicts in the context of labour disputes involving eviction from company accommodation; (4) it emphasizes the importance of courts respecting the orders of coordinate jurisdictions and not proceeding in disregard of extant court orders; (5) it demonstrates the High Court's willingness to exercise its inherent powers to regulate proceedings and prevent injustice, particularly where procedural irregularities and potential bias are alleged; and (6) it reinforces proper procedural requirements for urgent chamber applications, specifically the need to use the correct Form 29C format.