National Pharmaceutical Company (Pvt) Ltd v Walter Nhau

The respondent was employed by the applicant as human resources manager under a fixed-term contract to expire on 31 December 2024. On 14 July 2020, his employment was terminated in terms of s 12(4a)(c) of the Labour Act. On 27 October 2020, the respondent referred an unfair dismissal complaint to conciliation, which remained pending. During his employment, the respondent had been provided with a Mazda BT50 motor vehicle (registration AFF 1103) for use in furtherance of the employer's interests. After termination, the respondent retained possession of the vehicle. A meeting on 26 May 2021 explored possible reinstatement and withdrawal of pending cases but nothing materialized. The respondent's post was advertised on 7 November 2021. The applicant, as owner of the vehicle, brought an application for rei vindicatio to recover the motor vehicle from the respondent.

• Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a rei vindicatio claim relating to property held by virtue of an employment contract, or whether exclusive jurisdiction lies with the Labour Court under s 89(6) of the Labour Act
• Whether the respondent has a right to retain the motor vehicle despite termination of employment on the basis of challenging his dismissal or legitimate expectation of reinstatement
• Whether costs on a higher scale were warranted

1. The application for rei vindicatio was granted. 2. The respondent was ordered to surrender the Mazda BT50 motor vehicle registration number AFF 1103 to the applicant's offices within 48 hours. 3. If the respondent failed to comply, the Deputy Sheriff was empowered to seize and deliver the vehicle to the applicant without notice. 4. The respondent was ordered to pay costs of suit on an ordinary scale.

1. Section 89(6) of the Labour Act confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Labour Court only for applications and appeals specifically provided for in the Labour Act or other enactments. The common law remedy of rei vindicatio is not covered by the Labour Act, and therefore falls within the jurisdiction of the High Court. 2. The right of an individual to approach the High Court seeking relief other than that specifically set out in s 89(1)(a) of the Labour Act has not been abrogated. Nothing in s 89(6) takes away the right of an employer or employee to seek civil relief based on pure principles of civil law. 3. A former employee does not acquire a right of retention capable of resisting a rei vindicatio claim on the basis of challenging a completed dismissal and a hope that such dismissal may be reversed at a future uncertain date. 4. A legitimate expectation, without more, has no legal basis, is not justiciable, and cannot be converted into a claim of right sufficient to resist a vindicatory claim.

The court observed that the Supreme Court in Nhari v Mugabe did not expressly deal with rei vindicatio claims nor distinguish its earlier decision in Nyahora v CFI. The court noted that the only logical conclusion is that Nhari v Mugabe did not depart from Nyahora v CFI, and that in the former case, the Supreme Court simply sought to protect the High Court from general labour matters being brought on account of inherent jurisdiction. The court also noted that before Nyahora v CFI, one could be forgiven for following the DHL International line of cases that declined jurisdiction in favour of the Labour Court for recovery of employer property from employees. The court further observed that the question of retention of benefits by dismissed employees is a "weather-beaten road" on which the courts have consistently held such actions to be unlawful.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean labour and property law jurisprudence for clarifying the jurisdictional boundaries between the High Court and Labour Court following potentially conflicting Supreme Court decisions. It confirms that the High Court retains jurisdiction over common law remedies such as rei vindicatio even when the property in question was held by virtue of an employment relationship. The judgment reconciles the Supreme Court decisions in Nhari v Mugabe (2020) and Nyahora v CFI (2014), holding that while the Labour Court has exclusive jurisdiction over matters specifically provided for in the Labour Act, the High Court's jurisdiction over common law causes of action has not been abrogated. The case also reinforces the principle that employees who challenge their dismissal do not thereby acquire a right to retain employer property, and that a mere expectation of reinstatement cannot constitute a legal right of retention sufficient to resist a vindicatory claim.