Medical Investments Limited v Rumbidzayi Pedzisayi

The respondent was employed by the applicant as Chief Pharmacist from 1 December 2002 to November 2008. As part of her employment contract, she was entitled to use a company motor vehicle (VW Polo, registration number AAG 1727). The applicant had a motor vehicle policy that entitled employees to purchase vehicles allocated to them at 50% of market value after 4 years of use. On 30 October 2008, the respondent resigned giving notice, with her last working day being 17 November 2008. On 14 November 2008, three days before her last working day, the respondent wrote to the applicant indicating she was entitled to purchase the motor vehicle. On 17 November 2008, the respondent left employment taking the motor vehicle with her. The applicant requested the return of the vehicle, which the respondent refused, maintaining she was entitled to purchase it. The applicant then brought this application seeking an order compelling the respondent to surrender the vehicle.

• Whether the Labour Court had exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute or whether the High Court retained jurisdiction
• Whether the respondent validly exercised her option to purchase the motor vehicle while still employed
• Whether the respondent was entitled to retain possession of the motor vehicle pending finalization of the sale agreement

1. The respondent or any person possessing through her shall, upon service of this order, surrender to the applicant a motor vehicle, namely a VW Polo, registration number AAG 1727 failing which the Deputy Sheriff is empowered to take possession and hand it over to the applicant. 2. The respondent shall bear the costs of this application.

1. The Labour Court only has exclusive jurisdiction over matters where both the cause of action and the remedy are specifically provided for under the Labour Act. Where the employment relationship has terminated without dispute, a rei vindicatio action by the former employer falls within the High Court's jurisdiction. 2. An employee who exercises an option to purchase company property during the subsistence of employment is entitled to enforce that purchase right even after employment terminates. 3. A prospective purchaser has no legal right to retain possession of property against the seller's wishes prior to completion of the sale agreement, absent the seller's consent. Such possession arrangements are consensual and cannot be compelled by court order.

The court observed that in some instances where there is an amicable relationship between parties (such as where the employer-employee relationship still subsists or was amicably terminated, or where a tenant purchases leased property), the seller may allow a prospective purchaser already in possession to retain possession pending finalization of the sale. The court noted these examples are based on consent and cannot create any enforceable right or entitlement. The court also commented that the respondent's exercise of the purchase option appeared to be an afterthought, having been raised during the very last days of her employment.

This case clarifies the boundaries between the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court and the High Court in Zimbabwe. It establishes that once an employment relationship has terminated without dispute, matters involving the rei vindicatio of company property fall within the High Court's jurisdiction, not the Labour Court's exclusive jurisdiction. The case also provides guidance on the distinction between a right to purchase property and a right to possess property pending completion of a sale, confirming that a prospective purchaser has no automatic right to retain possession against the seller's wishes merely because they have a contractual right to purchase.