Nicholas Khumbula Tshili v Simon Willie N.O. and T.M. Supermarket (Pvt) Ltd

The applicant was employed by the 2nd respondent (T.M. Supermarket) as a section manager. On 9 March 2016, he appeared before a Hearing Officer for misconduct under the National Employment Code of Conduct Regulations of 2006. He was charged with gross incompetency and insufficiency in performance of duties, specifically failing to supervise daily stock counts, which resulted in the theft of television sets worth $798. The applicant was dismissed with effect from 9 March 2016. On 26 May 2016, the 1st respondent (Labour Officer) issued a draft ruling advising the applicant to exhaust internal appeal structures. Conciliation proceedings were held on 4 and 20 April 2016, and a certificate of no settlement was issued on 1 May 2016. The applicant filed another claim for unfair dismissal on 16 October 2017, but the Labour Officer ruled on 9 March 2018 that the matter was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and to protect against multiple proceedings under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act. The applicant then brought a chamber application for directions seeking an order compelling the 1st respondent to complete the draft ruling and issue a certificate of settlement to enable him to proceed to arbitration.

• Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a labour dispute and interfere with proceedings between the parties
• Whether the court can direct a functus officio Labour Officer to make another draft ruling
• Whether the application for directions is competent at law
• Whether the Labour Officer had jurisdiction to deal with the matter in terms of Statutory Instrument 15/2006, section 8(b)

The application was dismissed with costs.

The High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with proceedings in a labour dispute, which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court. The court cannot grant an order directing a functus officio Labour Officer to make another draft ruling when a previous ruling exists and has not been set aside. Applications that seek orders beyond the court's jurisdictional competence are incompetent at law and must be dismissed.

The court noted that despite sound legal advice having been given to the applicant by the respondents, he chose "with much courage and determination" to pursue the application. The court also observed that the application itself was "prima facie meaningless and incompetent at law" and that "the applicant is alien to this court and is not provided for in terms of the Rules." The court further noted that it had not escaped the court's attention that Kabasa J had issued an order relating to these parties on 2 May 2016 which was still extant, suggesting there may have been existing orders governing the matter.

This case reinforces the principle of jurisdictional competence in Zimbabwean law, particularly the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court over labour disputes. It establishes that the High Court will not interfere with labour matters that fall within the specialized jurisdiction of the Labour Court. The case also affirms the doctrine of functus officio as applied to Labour Officers, and the protection against multiple proceedings in labour matters under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act.