Lloyd Machacha v Health Service Commission and Others

The applicant, Lloyd Machacha, was employed in the public health sector and was dismissed from his position. He challenged the dismissal through the labour law framework. On 21 May 2025, the Labour Court handed down judgment number LC/H/1064/23 in the applicant's favour, finding his dismissal unlawful and ordering reinstatement with full benefits and without loss of salary, or alternatively damages in lieu of reinstatement. The judgment was not appealed and became final. The applicant contended that the respondents did not comply with the Labour Court order - they neither reinstated him nor paid damages. Instead of pursuing enforcement mechanisms under the Labour Act, the applicant approached the High Court by way of application seeking to compel the respondents to honour the Labour Court judgment.

• Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application to enforce a Labour Court judgment when enforcement mechanisms exist under the Labour Act
• Whether the applicant was required to exhaust remedies available under the labour law framework before approaching the High Court
• Whether the matter is properly before the High Court or should be dealt with through Labour Court enforcement procedures

The point in limine was upheld and the application was dismissed with costs on the ordinary scale.

Where a Labour Court judgment has been obtained, a party seeking to enforce that judgment must first exhaust the remedies and enforcement mechanisms available under the Labour Act, including registration of the Labour Court decision with a competent civil court under section 92B(3) or return to the Labour Court for further relief, before approaching the High Court. The High Court will not exercise jurisdiction to enforce a Labour Court order when the applicant has not utilized the direct enforcement avenues provided under that judgment and the Labour Act. The doctrine of exhaustion of domestic remedies applies with full force in labour matters, and the specialized jurisdiction of the Labour Court established under section 89 of the Labour Act must be respected unless exceptional circumstances exist warranting High Court intervention.

The court observed that even though the High Court has inherent jurisdiction over all civil and criminal matters under section 171 of the Constitution, that broad power is not without limits or discretion when a specialized forum exists. The court noted that only in exceptional circumstances - for example, where the specialized forum cannot grant effective relief or where irreparable harm would occur without urgent High Court intervention - might the High Court step in. The court quoted with approval from Kabichi v MMCZ (HH 38-18) that a party cannot simply bypass a court "specifically created to address his problem and bring it to the High Court", as this would "nullify the intention of the legislature that labour matters should be dealt with, in the first instance, by the Labour Court". The court also observed that if and when the labour law remedies are exhausted or prove inadequate, only then might a further approach to the High Court be considered.

This case reinforces the principle of exhaustion of domestic remedies in the labour law context and affirms the primacy of the Labour Court's specialized jurisdiction over employment disputes. It clarifies that parties must utilize the enforcement mechanisms provided under the Labour Act and Labour Court judgments before approaching the High Court, even though the High Court has inherent jurisdiction under section 171 of the Constitution. The judgment underscores that the High Court will not entertain labour matters that bypass the specialized labour tribunal system except in exceptional circumstances, thereby protecting the legislative scheme for labour dispute resolution and preventing the Labour Court from being rendered redundant.