Peter Masuka v Cold Storage Company Limited

The applicant brought an application seeking a declaratur that the respondent was in contempt of a court order and that he was still employed by the respondent company. The respondent had terminated the applicant's employment in accordance with common law rights as confirmed in Zuva Petroleum (Pvt) Ltd v Nyamande SC 43/15. The Labour Court had previously addressed the employment issues in a judgment dated 29 June 2018 (LC/H/287/18), and the applicant had filed an application for leave to appeal that decision. The respondent denied being in contempt, stating it had continued to pay the applicant's outstanding salary arrears as required by court order while challenging an order for reinstatement, and never consented to reinstatement as claimed by the applicant.

• Whether the respondent was in contempt of a court order
• Whether the applicant was still employed by the respondent
• Whether the High Court should pronounce on matters pending before the Labour Court
• Whether the applicant had met the requirements for a finding of contempt of court
• Whether the application constituted forum shopping

The application was dismissed with costs on the turn.

A court should not pronounce on issues that are pending before another court of competent jurisdiction, as this promotes forum shopping and is detrimental to the administration of justice. For a contempt of court application to succeed, an applicant must demonstrate: (i) that the person charged had knowledge of the court order; (ii) that such person was aware of the constraints placed upon them by the order; (iii) that the person disobeyed the court order; and (iv) that the disobedience was willful. Employment-related disputes fall within the jurisdictional competence of the Labour Court.

The court noted that parties can and do act upon orders pronounced ex tempore in open court without requiring formal written reasons. The court also observed that the applicant had failed to disclose in his founding affidavit and heads of argument that his employment had been lawfully terminated in accordance with common law rights confirmed in Zuva Petroleum (Pvt) Ltd v Nyamande SC 43/15.

This case reinforces the principle that courts should not pronounce on matters that are within the jurisdiction of, and pending before, another competent court. It demonstrates the importance of respecting court hierarchies and avoiding forum shopping. The judgment also clarifies the stringent requirements that must be met for a successful contempt of court application, requiring proof of knowledge, awareness of constraints, disobedience, and willfulness. It further confirms that employment termination matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court in Zimbabwe.