Tawanda Raymond Chinembiri v Stagri Brands (Private) Limited

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant under an alleged four-year verbal fixed-term contract commencing in April 2024. In December 2024, following successful disbursement of funding secured with the Plaintiff's assistance, the Defendant induced him to sign a four-month written contract. The Plaintiff alleges he signed this contract under undue pressure, misrepresentation, and economic duress. He claims the Defendant withheld his accrued salary arrears until he signed, and misrepresented that the contract was temporary due to a system upgrade, promising a new contract covering the remainder of the four-year term would be issued in January 2025. Instead, the Defendant terminated his employment relying on the four-month fixed-term contract. The Plaintiff sought a declaratory order that the four-month written contract is invalid at common law. The Plaintiff had also approached a Labour Officer alleging unfair dismissal. The Defendant raised a Special Plea in Bar challenging the High Court's jurisdiction, arguing the dispute was a purely labour matter falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court.

• Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief concerning the validity of an employment contract allegedly procured through undue influence, coercion and misrepresentation
• Whether a dispute concerning the validity of an employment contract falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court
• Whether the existence of parallel labour proceedings before a Labour Officer ousts the High Court's jurisdiction
• Whether the Plaintiff's alleged non-disclosure of pending labour proceedings affects the High Court's jurisdiction

The Defendant's Special Plea in Bar was dismissed with costs.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) The High Court has jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief concerning the validity of employment contracts where the cause of action is grounded in common law (undue influence, coercion, misrepresentation) rather than in the Labour Act; (2) The Labour Court's exclusive jurisdiction extends only to matters where both the cause of action and the remedy are provided for in the Labour Act - it does not extend to common law contractual disputes merely because the contract is one of employment; (3) The Labour Court, being a creature of statute, has no inherent jurisdiction and cannot determine the validity of contracts at common law; (4) Jurisdiction is determined by examining the plaintiff's cause of action and the remedy sought, not merely by the subject matter of the contract; (5) The High Court's jurisdiction is not ousted lightly and will only be excluded where legislation does so in clear and unambiguous terms; (6) Parallel proceedings in different forums addressing distinct causes of action (common law contract validity vs. statutory unfair dismissal) are permissible and do not constitute material non-disclosure or abuse of process that would affect jurisdiction.

The court observed that even if material non-disclosure and "dirty hands" were established, such matters do not oust the court's jurisdiction and are irrelevant to the narrow jurisdictional enquiry raised by a Special Plea in Bar. The court also noted that the Defendant's counsel abandoned the "dirty hands" argument as there was no basis on which that allegation could be sustained. The court commented that the lack of jurisdiction to issue declaratory orders by the Labour Court would of necessity also apply to a labour officer.

This case clarifies the jurisdictional boundaries between the High Court and Labour Court in Zimbabwe. It establishes that the High Court retains jurisdiction to determine the validity of employment contracts based on common law grounds (such as undue influence, coercion, and misrepresentation) notwithstanding that the contract in question is an employment contract. The judgment reinforces the principle that the Labour Court's exclusive jurisdiction is limited to matters where both the cause of action and remedy are provided for in the Labour Act. It confirms that the High Court's inherent jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief on contractual validity is not ousted merely because the contract happens to be one of employment. The case also clarifies that parallel proceedings in different forums addressing distinct causes of action do not constitute an abuse of process or oust jurisdiction.