The appellant, Mukundu, was employed by Mutasa Rural District Council as chief executive officer. In January 1998, internal auditors alleged financial mismanagement against him, including: awarding himself unauthorized salary increments; obtaining cement blocks on credit without authority; failing to account for $16,000 missing from Council funds; failing to keep records of development levy collection; and selling Council assets on credit without authority. On 10 February 1998, the Council appointed a committee under s 62 of the Rural District Councils Act to investigate. On 18 February 1998, the committee found grounds to believe Mukundu was guilty of misconduct, dishonesty and negligence, and recommended suspension without pay and application to a labour relations officer. He was suspended on 28 February 1998. On 6 March 1998, the Council ratified the decision. On 11 March 1998, the Council applied to the labour relations officer under SI 371/85 for termination of employment. Before the hearing, Mukundu applied to the High Court for review of his suspension, arguing the Council should have discharged him under s 36(2)(b) of the Conditions of Service instead of applying to the labour relations officer.
The appeal was dismissed with costs. The High Court's judgment dismissing the review application and upholding the suspension was affirmed.
The binding principle is that the Labour Relations Act and SI 371/85 apply to the termination of employment of a chief executive officer of a rural district council unless the governing statute contains an express provision making them inapplicable or providing for approval from a specific body other than the Minister of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare. An employer is obliged to obtain prior written approval from the Minister to discharge an officer or apply to the labour relations officer for an order terminating the contract of employment, even where conditions of service provide for discharge by the employer. Conditions of service that purport to allow dismissal without compliance with the Labour Relations Act and SI 371/85 cannot operate lawfully. SI 371/85, being regulations made under the Labour Relations Act, prevails over any other statutory instrument or agreement pursuant to s 17(2) of the Interpretation Act.
The court noted that subsequent to the proceedings in the High Court, the labour relations officer had heard the application for termination of employment, found the grounds for suspension proved, and ordered termination of the contract. This decision was upheld on appeal by the senior labour relations officer on 10 April 2000. An appeal to the Labour Relations Tribunal was noted on 8 May 2000 and was pending at the time of the Supreme Court judgment. The court observed that if the application to the labour relations officer had been null and void, the suspension would have been equally unlawful, and the order of the labour relations officer would have effect from the date it was made rather than from the date of suspension. These observations did not form part of the binding reasoning but provided context for the practical implications of the legal principles being applied.
This case establishes important principles regarding the applicability of the Labour Relations Act and SI 371/85 to rural district councils in Zimbabwe. It clarifies that even where specific conditions of service exist for employees of rural district councils, the Labour Relations Act and its regulations still apply to the termination of employment unless expressly excluded by statute. The case reinforces the principle that employers, including local government bodies, cannot bypass the labour relations framework simply because they have internal conditions of service. It also highlights the distinction between the Rural District Councils Act and the Urban Councils Act in terms of provisions for dismissal of senior officials. The judgment emphasizes the supremacy of SI 371/85 over other statutory instruments and agreements as provided by s 17(2) of the Interpretation Act.