Tichafara R. Viriri and Tsitsi Njanjari and 49 Ors v Mashonaland Turf Club

The second applicant and 41 other applicants were employed by the respondent. On 5 August 2015, the respondent terminated their employment but failed to pay retrenchment packages as required by s 12C(2) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. The dispute was referred to the first applicant (a designated agent) who issued a ruling on 29 August 2016 in favour of the employees for payment of USD160,614.60. On 6 October 2017, the Labour Court confirmed this ruling in terms of s 93(5a) of the Labour Act. The respondent failed to comply with the confirmed order, prompting the applicants to seek registration of the ruling in terms of s 93(5b) of the Labour Act.

• Whether the Labour Court order could be registered for enforcement despite a pending application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court
• Whether the Labour Court order was ambiguous and not sounding in money
• Whether the order should be limited to 42 employees rather than 49 as initially cited

The application for registration of the Labour Court order was granted. The order was registered in relation to the 42 employees specified in the first applicant's ruling dated 29 August 2016, with the necessary amendment correcting the number of applicants from "49 others" to "41 others".

The filing of an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against a Labour Court decision does not suspend that decision or prevent its registration for enforcement. An order sounds in money and is registrable if the amount claimed is easily ascertainable, even if not stated on the face of the order itself but incorporated by reference to another document. Under s 93(5b) of the Labour Act, where the Labour Court confirms a designated agent's ruling and the respondent fails to comply, the labour officer is entitled to have that order registered in an appropriate court for enforcement purposes.

The court noted that the respondent's counsel made proper concessions during the hearing by acknowledging there was no legal basis for opposing the registration. The court also observed that there was a clerical error in the initial citation (referring to "49 others" instead of "41 others") but found no prejudice in granting the order in relation to the 42 employees actually referred to in the designated agent's original ruling.

This case clarifies the procedure for registration and enforcement of labour officer rulings confirmed by the Labour Court under s 93(5b) of the Labour Act. It confirms that: (1) a mere application for leave to appeal does not suspend a Labour Court order - only a granted appeal with filing at the Supreme Court would have that effect; (2) orders that incorporate other orders by reference can sound in money if the amounts are easily ascertainable; and (3) the court will give effect to the legislative scheme enabling swift enforcement of labour rights through registration of confirmed rulings.