Samson Zukwa Dandira v Zimbabwe Posts (Private) Limited t/a Zimpost and The Labour Court Judge Honourable Murasi J. NO

The applicant sought review of two Labour Court decisions: (1) LCH 25/24 where his application was struck off the roll with costs; and (2) LCH 425/24 where his application for reinstatement was dismissed, with costs ordered on a legal practitioner-client scale. The latter order specifically prohibited the applicant from instituting any further proceedings against the respondent without first paying the ordered costs. Despite this prohibition, the applicant proceeded to institute review proceedings in the High Court without complying with the costs order. The applicant argued that the Labour Court improperly struck off and dismissed his applications based on incomplete records. The first respondent raised points in limine regarding non-compliance with the Labour Court order and that the review was disguised as an appeal. The first respondent also applied for upliftment of bar for late filing of heads of argument.

• Whether the court could grant audience to the applicant who had failed to comply with an extant court order requiring payment of costs before instituting further proceedings
• Whether non-compliance with a court order constitutes contempt of court and bars access to the court
• Whether the application for upliftment of bar should be granted to the first respondent
• The binding nature of court orders and the consequences of deliberate disobedience

1. The 1st respondent's application for upliftment of bar is dismissed. 2. The court withholds its jurisdiction until the applicant complies with the order for payment of first respondent's costs. 3. There shall be no order as to costs.

A court order, even if allegedly incorrect, remains valid and binding until set aside through proper legal procedures. A litigant who deliberately fails to comply with an extant court order is in contempt of court and approaches the court with 'dirty hands.' Such a litigant will be denied access to the courts until they purge their contempt by complying with the outstanding order. The principle that an extant court order is not set aside by simply defying it is fundamental to the rule of law. A party who knowingly contravenes a court order cannot simultaneously seek the court's assistance in other matters - they must first comply with existing obligations before being granted audience.

The court noted with concern the developing pattern of the first respondent's legal representatives repeatedly failing to adhere to court rules and continuously seeking upliftment of bar throughout the various stages of litigation from conciliation to arbitration, to the Labour Court and up to the Supreme Court. The court observed that it is not in the interests of justice for courts to continue to condone such failures, particularly where a party is legally represented. This suggests judicial frustration with repeat offenders who abuse the court's indulgence in procedural matters. The court also made observations about the nature of court orders, citing Lord Raddiffe's dictum that an order 'bears no brand of illegality on its forehead' and will remain effective unless properly challenged and set aside.

This case reinforces the fundamental principle in Zimbabwean law (applicable to South African jurisprudence as well) that court orders must be obeyed regardless of whether the party subject to them believes them to be incorrect. It establishes that litigants who willfully disobey extant court orders will be denied access to the courts until they purge their contempt by complying with such orders - the 'clean hands' doctrine. The case also demonstrates the courts' willingness to sanction legally represented parties who develop a pattern of non-compliance with procedural rules, refusing to continually condone such behavior even when it might prejudice the administration of justice. The judgment serves as an important reminder that the rule of law depends on compliance with court orders and that the remedy for an allegedly incorrect order is appeal or review, not defiance.