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