Luckson Dlodlo and Twelve Others v Road Motor Services (Private) Limited

The appellants were employees of the respondent who engaged in collective job action on 6 August 1998 over wage increments. The collective job action was unlawful under section 104(3)(a)(v) of the Labour Relations Act as the matter in dispute (wage increments) was governed by the Transport Operating Industry Collective Bargaining Agreement dated 3 July 1997, which had not yet expired. From 24 August 1998, the appellants appeared before a Grievance and Disciplinary Committee charged with unlawful collective job action in contravention of the respondent's Code of Conduct. Each employee admitted participation but claimed it was lawful. On 31 August 1998, the Committee found them guilty and dismissed them from employment. Their appeals to the Managing Director were dismissed on 9 September 1998. They received terminal benefits. On 26 October 1998, instead of appealing to the Labour Relations Tribunal, the appellants applied directly to the High Court for review of the dismissal decision, citing serious backlogs at the Tribunal as justification.

• Whether the appellants were required to exhaust domestic remedies by appealing to the Labour Relations Tribunal before approaching the High Court for review
• Whether the learned Judge properly exercised his discretion in dismissing the application for failure to exhaust domestic remedies
• Whether delay at the Labour Relations Tribunal constituted sufficient special circumstances to justify bypassing the domestic remedy

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

A litigant must exhaust domestic remedies, specifically by appealing to the Labour Relations Tribunal in labour dismissal matters, before approaching the High Court for review unless there are good reasons and special features justifying direct court access. The existence of a backlog at the Labour Relations Tribunal does not constitute sufficient special circumstances to bypass the tribunal. An appellate court will not interfere lightly with the proper exercise of discretion by a court of first instance where that discretion has been exercised judicially and applying correct principles.

The learned Judge considered, though it was not strictly necessary to his decision, other procedural defects in the application including: (1) the failure to cite the Grievance and Disciplinary Hearing Committee as a party; and (2) the failure to state the grounds upon which the proceedings were sought to be set aside or corrected shortly and clearly. These observations were obiter as they were not the basis upon which the application was dismissed, though they formed the focus of the grounds of appeal.

This case reinforces the doctrine of exhaustion of domestic remedies in Zimbabwean labour law. It establishes that mere delay or backlog at the Labour Relations Tribunal is not sufficient to constitute special circumstances justifying direct approach to the High Court, bypassing the specialized labour tribunal. The case demonstrates the courts' commitment to maintaining the integrity of the specialized labour dispute resolution mechanisms and preventing forum shopping. It also illustrates the limited scope of appellate interference with proper exercise of discretion by lower courts.