CaseNotes LogoCaseNotes
  • Home
  • Library
  • Research
  • Discussion Hub
  • Wiki
  • Latin Dictionary
  • Question Bank
  • Settings
S

Student

Student Account

South African Law • Jurisdictional Corpus
HomeLibraryResearchQuestionsSettings
Judicial Precedent
Ask AI

Lephat Zulu v National Railways of Zimbabwe

CitationHB 70/20; HC 2411/18
JurisdictionZW
Area of Law
Labour LawLaw of PrescriptionTort Law (Personal Injury)

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was employed by the defendant (National Railways of Zimbabwe) until 1993. In 1983, the plaintiff was injured on duty. An assessment of the injury and disability award in terms of section 15 SI 68 was completed by the General Manager of the National Social Security Authority on 12 December 2001 and submitted to the defendant in 2002. The defendant became aware it owed the plaintiff $7,374.50 for injuries sustained on duty but deliberately or negligently concealed the award from the plaintiff. The plaintiff only learned of his entitlement in 2016 when he visited the defendant's offices for regular medical checkups. The plaintiff issued summons on 6 September 2018 claiming the amount owed. The defendant alleged it had paid the plaintiff by cheque number 11396 on 15 January 2002 but produced no proof of payment or that the plaintiff received or encashed the cheque.

Legal Issues

  • Whether the plaintiff's claim had prescribed in terms of section 15(d) and section 16(1) of the Prescription Act Chapter 8:11
  • Whether section 16(2) of the Prescription Act applied where a debtor willfully prevented a creditor from becoming aware of the existence of a debt
  • Whether the defendant had discharged its liability by alleged payment

Judicial Outcome

1. The special plea is dismissed with costs. 2. The matter proceeds to trial.

Ratio Decidendi

Where a debtor (employer) willfully prevents a creditor (employee) from becoming aware of the existence of a debt owed for workplace injuries, prescription does not commence to run until the creditor becomes aware of the existence of the debt, in accordance with section 16(2) of the Prescription Act Chapter 8:11. The burden is on the debtor to prove payment of a debt with sufficient evidence including acknowledgment of receipt, and mere allegation of payment by cheque without supporting documentation is insufficient to discharge liability.

Obiter Dicta

Takuva J made strong critical observations about the defendant's conduct, stating that the case "epitomizes the extent to which an employer can go in a bid to prevent payment of what is due and owing to a hapless employee" and noting that "the employer's entire machinery i.e. legal, financial and human resources is unleashed on the bemused employee, contrary to the supposed benign nature of human kind." The judge questioned whether this represented capitalism or malignancy and expressed surprise given that the defendant was a public entity not solely run for profit. The court also noted irregularities in a letter allegedly sent to the plaintiff in 2002, which appeared to have been forged in 2016 and backdated, had a forged signature, an irregular workers compensation reference number, and did not bear the defendant's letterhead.

Legal Significance

This case is significant in Zimbabwean labour and prescription law for its application of section 16(2) of the Prescription Act Chapter 8:11 in the employment context. It establishes that where an employer willfully conceals an employee's entitlement to compensation, prescription does not run until the employee becomes aware of the debt. The case reinforces the protective principles in labour law against employer abuse and prevents employers from relying on prescription to avoid legitimate obligations they have deliberately concealed. It also demonstrates the court's willingness to scrutinize employer conduct and reject technical defenses based on prescription where there is evidence of concealment or bad faith.

Cited By 53 Cases

  • Admire Zhakata and Sandra Musarurwa v Homelink Private Limited and Sheriff of the High CourtHH 41-22, HC 3347/20 (Ref Case No HC 9076/14)
    Follows

    Followed for the decision that it was not the intention of the legislature to include any foreign denominated debt other than United States dollars; any…

  • Alan Charles Patrick Ingram Lock v Elen Olivia Lock (nee Fischer) and The Sheriff of Zimbabwe N.OHH 239-21, HC 3576/20
    Applies

    Court applies the Supreme Court's interpretation of section 4 (1)(d) of Statutory Instrument 133 of 2019 and s 22 (1)(d) of the Finance Act to determine that…

  • Amnesty International Zimbabwe v Cousin ZilalaHH 328-25, HCH 3026/20
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that s 4(1)(d) of SI 33/2019 and s 22(1)(d) of the Finance Act affect claims denominated in foreign currency.

  • Artwell Maradha v Big Valley (Pvt) LtdHMA 64-20; HC 40-20
    Applies

    Court applied this case to interpret section 22(1)(d) of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019, particularly the phrases 'discharge of financial or contractual…

  • Betty Ruzvidzo v Jeremiah WarikandwaHH 439-22, HC 4207/21
    Distinguishes

    Court distinguishes this case from the present matter on the basis that the obligation to pay arose after 22 February 2019 when the order was revived on 15…

  • Bona Mutsahuni-Mugabe N.O. and Tinotenda Robert Mugabe and Bellarmine Chatunga Mugabe v Tinos ManongovereHH 309-22, CIV 'A' 154/21
    Considers

    The court considered the principle that where statutory language is clear and unambiguous, words should be given their ordinary grammatical meaning, but where…

  • Campion Mugweni v Tian Ze Tobacco (Private) LimitedSC 120/21 (Civil Appeal No. SC 415/20)
    Distinguishes

    The appellant argued that following this judgment the judgment of the court a quo should have been denominated in local currency, but the Supreme Court…

  • Esther Gandawa v Joshua GopozaHH 577-22, HC 3410/21
    Applies

    The court applies this case's interpretation of Finance Act No. 2/2019, stating that debts incurred in US$ before February 2019 were to be discharged on a 1:1…

  • Exodus and Company (Private) Limited v Sicilia Virginia ShaviHH 510-21 (CIV "A" 115/20, REF CASE APP 61/60)
    Applies

    Applied to interpret SI 33 of 2019 regarding conversion of United States dollar assets and liabilities to RTGS dollars at 1:1 rate and the application of that…

  • Francis Pedzana Gudyanga v The StateHH 549-22, HACC (A) 3/22
    Distinguishes

    Court distinguishes this civil case which interpreted amendments to Finance Act and SI 33/2019, holding it inapplicable to criminal restitution governed by the…

  • George Garai Murinda v Vutsa NyarumbuHH 212-22, CIV 'A' 118/21
    Applies

    Court applied the principle that section 4(1)(d) of S.I. 33/19 would not apply where the value of assets and liabilities was still to be assessed by…

  • Globe Trot (Private) Limited v Probadek Investments (Private) Limited and OthersHH 601-22, HC 2226/21
    Distinguishes

    Distinguished by the court on the basis that the case has never been authority for the proposition that courts cannot grant judgment for a claim denominated in…

  • Golden Beams Development (Pvt) Ltd v Fredson Munyaradzi MabhenaHH 296-21 (HC 3397/20)
    Considers

    The respondent relied on this case to argue that his indebtedness was extinguished; the court distinguished it on the basis that the judgment debt was…

  • Homelink (Private) Limited v Clever MaputseniJudgment No. SC 4/22; Civil Appeal No. SC 393/20
    Applies

    Court applies the interpretation of section 4(1)(d) of S.I. 33/19 that assets and liabilities valued and expressed in United States dollars immediately before…

  • Ismail Moosa Lunat v Mohamed Zakariya Patel and The Deputy Sheriff, BulawayoHB 66/20; HC 701/20 (XREF HC 762/19, 2489/19 & HB 196/10)
    Applies

    Court applies the Supreme Court's binding precedent on the effect of SI 33/2019 and Finance Act No. 2 of 2019 on debts denominated in USD before 22 February…

  • Ismail Moosa Lunat v Mohammed PatelSC 47/22, Civil Appeal No. SCB 51/21
    Related To

    Referenced as the case on which the applicant relied for advice to settle the debt in Zimbabwean dollars at parity rate.

  • Ismail Moosa Lunat v Mohammed Zakariya Patel and The Deputy SheriffJudgment No. SC 142/21, Chamber Application No. SCB 35/21
    Related To

    The applicant sought to argue that this case had overturned the High Court judgment granting relief to the respondent.

  • Job Sibanda and Associates v Charles MabhenaHB 09/25, HC 1897/19
    Follows

    The Supreme Court's interpretation of SI 33/2019 is binding on this court, holding that all USD liabilities existing before 22 February 2019 are settled at 1:1…

  • Leah Nachipo and Gerald Nachipo v Admire Maticha, Trevor Mwaramba, Cleopas Manyika, Lewis Chasakara, Wonder Mushure and City of Harare N.O.SC 72/2022; Civil Appeal No. SC 425/20
    Applies

    Applied to explain the court's duty to interpret statutes, noting that where language is clear and unambiguous, words should be given their ordinary…

  • Lephat Zulu v National Railways of ZimbabweHB 250/21, HC 2411/18
    Applies

    Supreme Court decision applied to resolve the currency issue and render the defendant's currency objection redundant.

  • Lydia Chinyaukira v Premier Tobacco Auction Floors (Private) LimitedHH 346-21, Case No HC 4482/20
    Considers

    Supreme Court judgment handed down on 20 January 2020 considered by respondent as putting to rest the issue of applicable currency in discharging obligations.

  • Lynette Muchaneta Shumba v The Trustees of the Geoffrey Jekyll Trust and OthersHH 399-21, HC 241/21
    Applies

    Court applies the interpretation of section 4(1)(d) of SI 33 of 2019 that all debts incurred before 19 February 2019 are payable in local currency at the rate…

  • Manojkumar Jivan v Salzman Et Cie SA & AnorHH 242-22, HC 1693-21 & HC 2127-21
    Follows

    Court follows this Supreme Court ruling that the origin of obligations is not a criterion for the exclusion of the application of S.I. 33/19.

  • Midlands State University v Galaxy Engineering Design Consultants (Private) LimitedSC 127/21; Civil Appeal No. SC 438/19
    Applies

    The Supreme Court applied the interpretation of s 4(1)(d) of Statutory Instrument 33/19 as set out in Zambezi Gas, holding that liabilities expressed in United…

  • M.M.W. (Pvt) Ltd v Zimbabwe Revenue AuthorityHH 31-22, ITC 01/17
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that statutory words should be subjected to literal interpretation and given their ordinary and grammatical meaning where no absurdity,…

  • Muchaneta Theodora Chimbandi v Mabel Canvas (Private) LimitedJudgment No. 68/22, Civil Appeal No. SC 18/20
    Distinguishes

    Court distinguished this case which held that assets, liabilities and judgment debts denominated in United States dollars before 22 February 2019 should be…

  • Muchaneta Theodora Chimbandi v The Taxing Officer and Mabel Canvas (Private) LimitedHH 317-22, HC 4421/20
    Applies

    The Supreme Court judgment was applied to interpret the meaning of assets and liabilities under section 4(1)(d) of S.I. 33/19 and section 22(1)(d) of the…

  • Muchanyara Mukamuri v Zimbabwe National Network for People Living with HIVHH 582-22, HC 2763/22
    Considers

    Respondent argued that applicant's claim made in 2016 is affected by the change in law as expressed in this case, rendering it payable in Zimbabwean dollars.

  • Muhammad Akram v Olga Mukwindidza & AnorHH 522-21, HC 5196/20
    Follows

    Court follows this Supreme Court authority which authoritatively settled that judgment debts are subject to the one-to-one conversion under S.I. 33/19 and that…

  • Nhimbe Fresh Export (Pvt) Ltd v Prisma Packaging and Messenger of Court, MaronderaHH 410-21, HC 5388/20
    Applies

    The court applies the Supreme Court's interpretation of S.I. 33/19 section 4(1)(d) that it applies only to assets and liabilities denominated in United States…

  • Njanike Construction Company (Pvt) Ltd t/a One Way Building Contractors' Construction v Turnall Holdings LimitedHH 605-25; HCH 2484/25
    Considers

    Considered to distinguish the effect of Statutory Instrument 33 of 2019, noting that while the Supreme Court gave effect to the law by allowing debts to be…

  • Prometheus (Private) Limited v Fairdrop Trading (Pvt) Limited t/a Rock Foundation Medical Centre (Under Judicial Management)HH 595-22, HC 3059/20
    Follows

    Supreme Court adopted a position similar to that in ZFC Limited case regarding the application of section 126 of the Insolvency Act.

  • Rita Marque Mbatha v Confederation of Zimbabwe Industries and The Sheriff of ZimbabweHH 180-20, HC 638/20
    Applies

    Court applied this case to interpret section 4(1)(d) of S.I. 33/19 and section 22(1)(d) of the Finance Act 2019 regarding the 1:1 conversion rate between USD…

  • Rodger Muhlwa v Alpha Media Holdings (Pvt) Ltd t/a Southern Eye and OthersHB 117/22; HC 334/21
    Applies

    Locus classicus for interpretation of S.I. 33/2019; court held that section 4(1)(d) applies only where value of asset or liability was expressed in United…

  • Sarudzai Harry v The StateHH 36-22, CA 733/19
    Applies

    Applied the interpretation of section 4(1)(d) of SI 33/19 concerning the conversion of USD liabilities and assets to RTGS dollars, and held that the origin of…

  • Schweppes Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd v Blakey Investments (Pvt) LtdHH 601-21, HC 2682/20
    Cites

    The court cites this case in the context of submissions regarding the position that if payment were to be made locally, the contract would have been taken…

  • Shamina Holdings (Private) Limited v Tribac Tobacco (Private) Limited and OthersHH 794-22, HC 3203/20
    Applies

    The court applies the principle from Zambezi Gas that once a conversion of assets or liabilities denominated in USD is made to RTGS dollars at the one-to-one…

  • The Trustees for the Time Being of the MTU Family Trust v Tapuwa Evans ChidemoHH 405-25, HCH 2236/24
    Applies

    The court applied this case to interpret section 4(1)(d) of SI 33/2019 regarding the one-to-one conversion of assets and liabilities valued in United States…

  • Thomas Meda v Innscor Africa Bread Company (Pvt) LtdHH 358-22, HC 3634/20
    Distinguishes

    Court distinguishes this case on the basis that it dealt with a judgment debt denominated in United States Dollars before the effective date of 22 February…

  • Tirivangani Matare v Estere Chivasa N.O and The State and OthersHH 60-2022, HACC 25/20, CRB ACC 98-100/19, ACC16-19/20
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that a constitutional application under s 85 of the Constitution should be filed rather than adopting an omnibus approach.

  • Tizai Chiswanda (In his capacity as father and guardian of Chidochashe Chiswanda) v OK Zimbabwe LimitedHH 266-22, Case No. HC 4770/15
    Applies

    Applied to interpret s 4(1)(d) of S.I. 33/19 regarding assets and liabilities expressed in USD before the effective date and the effect of conversion at a rate…

  • Triback (Private) Limited v Stephen Archieford Taruona and Sharon TaruonaHH 98-22, HC 3275/20
    Cites

    Cited by applicant in support of the submission that US$18,000.00 had been revalued to Z$18,000.00 by operation of law.

  • Twenty Third Century (Private) Limited v Zimbabwe Manpower Development Fund and OthersHH 506-22; HC 1737/22
    Cites

    Cited by the applicant to support the submission that a purposive approach should be adopted when interpreting section 73 of the Public Procurement Act.

  • UZ-UCSF Collaborative Research Programme v Isdore Husaihwevhu and OthersHH 703/22, HC 4183/22 (High Court of Zimbabwe)
    Follows

    Court follows this authority for the proposition that liabilities expressed in US dollars before the effective date and not falling within section 44C(2)…

  • Valentine T. Mushayakurara v Zimbabwe Leaf Tobacco Company (Private) LimitedSC 108/21 (Civil Appeal No. SC 180/20)
    Distinguishes

    The court distinguished Zambezi Gas, which held that contractual obligations valued in United States dollars before the effective date were to be paid in RTGS…

  • Veronica Nyoni v Bernadette Eva Ndoro N.OJudgment No. SC 79/22, Civil Appeal No. SC 367/21
    Cites

    Cited by respondent's counsel for the proposition that a debt due in United States Dollars before 22 February 2019 should be paid in RTGS dollar at parity rate…

  • Wilson Tendai Nyabonda v Ariston Holdings Limited and Leon NortierHH 677/24, HCH 4843/24
    Follows

    Court follows the principle that once a conversion of assets or liabilities denominated in United States dollars is made to RTGS dollars at a one-to-one rate,…

  • Winnie Chisoma v Kingsley MtetwaHH 275-25; HCH 3176/23
    Cites

    The respondent relies on this case for the definition of 'judgment debt' as a decision of a court upon relief claimed which in the case of money refers to the…

  • ZESA Holdings (Private) Limited v Obson MatunjaJudgment No. SC 73/22, Civil Appeal No. SC 02/22
    Cites

    Cited at page 7 for the literal rule of statutory interpretation.

  • Zimbabwe Football Association v Custen Pickweli and 15 OthersHH 12-21, HC 8137/19
    Follows

    Court follows the Supreme Court's determination that assets and liabilities denominated in USD before 22 February 2019 are deemed payable in RTGS dollars on a…

  • Zimbabwe Leaf Tobacco (Private) Limited v Patricia Vengesayi and Sheriff of Zimbabwe N.OSC 149/21; Civil Appeal No. SC 347/20
    Distinguishes

    The court a quo held that payment by the first respondent in RTGS dollars was in accordance with this decision, but the Supreme Court distinguished it, holding…

  • Zimbabwe Teachers Association (Mashonaland West) v Thomas Nyamudzoza and OthersHH 692-22, HC 2673/20
    Considers

    Court considered whether the acknowledgment of debt sought to circumvent the effects of this Supreme Court judgment by expressing the debt in United States…

  • Zvikomborero Murahwi v Pam Golding Properties ZimbabweHH 723-22, HC 5518/21
    Cites

    Cited for the approach of travelling a timeline of events against statutory and judicial milestones to establish the particular currency applicable.

Explore More Cases

More Labour Law cases

  • (1) Isador Husaiwevhu (2) Walter Mutowo (3) Fungai Zinyama v (1) UZ-UCSF Collaborative Research Programme (2) Sheriff of Zimbabwe N.O (3) High Court Registrar N.OJudgment No. SC 86/25, Civil Appeal No. SC 302/25
  • Aaron Mwenje v Intermarket Building SocietySC. 80/05 (Civil Appeal No. 358/04)
  • Aaron Zhomwe v BHP Minerals CompanyS.C. 3/2001 (Civil Appeal No. 25/2000)
  • Abdool Samad Cassim v Richards Bay MineralsD 81/2021
  • Abishai Bonda and Daniel Mahoza v JR Goddard Contracting (Pvt) LtdHB 199/22, HC 1411/20
  • ACCA Zimbabwe v Cuthbert MunhupedziHH 232-21, HC 3522/20
  • Adcorp Workforce Solutions (Pty) Ltd v CCMA and OthersCase no: D 1280/19
  • Adlecraft Investments (Private) Limited v Cassandra Myburgh and Colins BakerHH 538-21, HC 4465/21

More Zimbabwe cases

  • (1) Douglas Tanyanyiwa (2) Douglas Warriors Football Club v Lawrence Bernard GwaradaCivil Appeal No. SC 150/11; Judgment No. SC 79/2014
  • (1) Elias Hwenga (2) Mercy Hwenga (3) Kenneth (4) Prince Nyemba (5) A. P. Phillip and Company (Private) Limited v FBC Bank LimitedJudgment No. SC 36/21, Civil Appeal No. SC 204/16
  • (1) Isador Husaiwevhu (2) Walter Mutowo (3) Fungai Zinyama v (1) UZ-UCSF Collaborative Research Programme (2) Sheriff of Zimbabwe N.O (3) High Court Registrar N.OJudgment No. SC 86/25, Civil Appeal No. SC 302/25
  • (1) Petros Makaza (2) Golden Nhika v The State and (1) Khumbuzo Gumbo (2) Sydney Ndachengedzwa v The StateCCZ 16/17 (Const. Application No. CCZ 5/13 and Const. Application No. CCZ 102/13)
  • 1. Tapera Sengweni v The Law Society of Zimbabwe 2. Augustine Runesu Chizikani v The Law Society of ZimbabweHH 706-19, LPDT 8/18 and LPDT 27/18
  • (1) Tungamirai Madzokere (2) Lazarus Maengahama (3) Stanford Maengahama (4) Phineous Nhatarikwa (5) Stanford Mangwiro (6) Yvonne Musarurwa (7) Rebecca Mafukeni v The StateSC 8/12; Civil Application No. 318/11
  • A. Adam and Company (Private) Limited & 2 Others v Good Living Real Estate (Private) LimitedSC 50/21; Civil Appeal No. SC 351/19
  • A. Adam and Company (Private) Limited and Others v Goodliving Real Estate (Private) LimitedSC 18/21; Civil Appeal No. SC 444/19

Practice This Case

Sign up to practise IRAC analysis, issue spotting, and argument building on this case.

Free account

Get the most out of this judgment

Create a free CaseNotes account to save this case, see how it's cited, get an AI summary, and search 10,000+ SA judgments.

Create free accountor sign in