Theresa Ruredzo v Duly Holdings Limited

The plaintiff, Ms. Theresa Ruredzo, was employed by the defendant, Duly Holdings Limited, for thirty-one years and two months, starting as a Clerk Typist and advancing to National Administration Manager. She retired in November 2017. Upon retirement, she was allegedly not paid her terminal benefits, which included service pay, long service pay, and gift vouchers. The plaintiff asserted that following negotiations, the parties agreed that her terminal benefits would be satisfied by the delivery of a Ford Everest motor vehicle within five years of her retirement. When the defendant failed to deliver the vehicle, the plaintiff approached the High Court seeking an order directing the defendant to deliver the motor vehicle within one month, alleging breach of contract.

• Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear a claim for terminal benefits framed as a contractual claim for delivery of property
• Whether the claim constitutes a labour dispute falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court
• Whether an agreement to pay terminal benefits in kind (a motor vehicle) removes the matter from the jurisdiction of the Labour Court
• The effect of Section 172(2) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013 and Section 89(6) of the Labour Act on the High Court's jurisdiction over employment-related matters

The special plea regarding jurisdiction raised by the defendant was upheld with costs. The High Court declined jurisdiction over the matter.

The binding legal principle established is that claims arising from the employment relationship, including claims for terminal benefits, fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court regardless of how they are framed by the parties. Even where a claim is presented as a contractual obligation for the delivery of property, if the claim is intrinsically linked to the employment relationship and concerns obligations arising from that relationship (such as terminal benefits), it constitutes a labour dispute. Section 172(2) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013 read together with Section 89(6) of the Labour Act ousts the jurisdiction of the High Court in labour matters and confers exclusive first-instance jurisdiction on the Labour Court. Section 13(1) of the Labour Act classifies failure to pay terminal benefits as an unfair labour practice, bringing such disputes within the Labour Court's exclusive domain. The substance of the claim, rather than its form, determines jurisdiction.

The court observed that the plaintiff appeared to have initiated the proceedings in an attempt to circumvent the jurisdictional limitations imposed by labour law by framing her claim as a purely contractual matter. The court noted the evolution of the legislative framework since the 2011 Madinda Ndlovu decision, commenting that jurisprudential positions established before the 2013 Constitution and the 2015 amendments to the Labour Act have been superseded. The court also made general observations distinguishing between contracts and labour matters, noting that a contract is a specific agreement governed by contract law, while labour matters encompass broader employment-related issues subject to labour law and regulations. The court emphasized that the legislative provisions represent a clear policy decision to assign exclusive jurisdiction to the Labour Court for the resolution of employment-related disputes.

This case reinforces the principle of exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court over employment-related disputes in Zimbabwe. It demonstrates that courts will look beyond the framing of claims to determine their true nature, and that parties cannot circumvent the Labour Court's exclusive jurisdiction by characterizing labour disputes as purely contractual matters. The judgment clarifies that claims for terminal benefits, even when allegedly agreed to be paid in kind through delivery of property, remain labour matters. It also confirms the significance of the constitutional and legislative framework established by Section 172(2) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013 and Section 89(6) of the Labour Act (as amended in 2015), which superseded earlier case law on jurisdictional matters. The case is important for understanding the scope of the Labour Court's exclusive jurisdiction and the limited circumstances in which employment-related claims can be brought before the ordinary courts.