PG Industries (Zimbabwe) Limited v Mark Bvekerwa & 34 Others

The respondents were formerly employed by PG Merchandising Limited trading as PG Timbers, of which the appellant was the holding company. PG Timbers has since ceased to exist. The respondents lost their employment after participating in an illegal collective job action on 30 November 2011 aimed at coercing wage increases. They were charged with contravening the PG Industries Code of Conduct, convicted in absentia, and dismissed. They sought leave to appeal internally after three months (the Code required six working days) and applied for condonation. On 22 May 2012, the appeals committee dismissed the condonation application. The respondents noted an appeal to the Labour Court on 17 June 2012, but cited different respondents on form LC 3 (citing the appellant) and the grounds of appeal (citing PG Timbers). The appellant raised a preliminary point about the confusion in citation. The Labour Court on 2 August 2013 ordered the respondents to amend their notice of appeal. On 13 September 2013, respondents filed a chamber application for amendment, which was granted on 11 November 2013 without reasons being provided. The appellant appealed this order.

• Whether the Labour Court committed an irregularity by granting an amendment order without providing reasons for its judgment
• Whether the Labour Court erred in failing to determine the preliminary point raised regarding improper citation of parties
• Whether the Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction by effectively uplifting the corporate veil and substituting the appellant as employer in place of PG Timbers
• Whether the amendment had the effect of wrongly making the appellant a party to the employment dispute when it was never the respondents' employer

1. The appeal was allowed with costs. 2. The judgment of the Labour Court under Case No LC/H/413/12 dated 2 August 2013 was set aside. 3. The matter was remitted to the Labour Court for determination. 4. The judgment of the Labour Court dated 11 November 2013 was set aside and substituted with an order striking the chamber application for amendment off the roll with no order as to costs.

1. A court is obliged to give reasons for its judgment in opposed matters to inform the parties of the reasons for the decision. A failure to give reasons is an irregularity which has the effect of vitiating the proceedings. 2. Where a preliminary point or dispute on a question of fact or law is raised, there must be a judicial decision on the issue in dispute. The failure to resolve such a dispute vitiates the order given at the end of the proceedings. 3. The Labour Court, as a creature of statute, can only do that which it is empowered to do by the Labour Act and has no jurisdiction to uplift the corporate veil. An order that has the effect of uplifting the corporate veil and substituting one entity for another as employer is made without jurisdiction and constitutes a gross irregularity. 4. The Supreme Court has power under s 25 of the Supreme Court Act to exercise review powers whenever it comes to the notice of the court that an irregularity has occurred in any proceedings or in the making of any decision, even if those proceedings are the subject of an appeal before it.

The Court observed that a reasoned judgment may well discourage an appeal by the losing party, while the failure to state reasons may have the opposite effect. The Court also noted that in addition to informing the parties, a court of appeal has a similar interest in knowing why the judge who heard the matter made the order which he or she did. The Court referenced the principle that the Supreme Court's review powers under s 25(2) deal with irregularities in respect of which no appeal or application is before the Supreme Court, and such review is undertaken at the instance of the Supreme Court and not of any litigant, although in this case the review was exercised in the context of an appeal already before it.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean labour and civil procedure law for establishing important principles regarding: (1) the mandatory duty of courts to provide reasons for their judgments in opposed matters; (2) the obligation of courts to determine preliminary points properly raised before them rather than avoiding such determination; (3) the limits of the Labour Court's jurisdiction, particularly that it cannot uplift the corporate veil to substitute one entity for another as an employer; (4) the Supreme Court's review powers under s 25 of the Supreme Court Act to correct irregularities even in matters coming before it on appeal; and (5) the principle that courts should not fashion remedies on behalf of parties that have not been sought or argued. The case reinforces procedural fairness and the importance of courts remaining within their statutory jurisdiction.