Unifreight Africa Limited v Nicholas Mukarati and Priscillah Mgazi N.O.

The applicant, Unifreight Africa Limited (formerly Pioneer Corporation Africa Limited), sought a declaratory order that it was irregularly cited as an employer in a Labour Officer's ruling dated 5 June 2023 and that the ruling does not apply to it. The first respondent was employed by Pioneer Coaches (Private) Limited as Managing Director and was suspended in April 2010 on allegations of misconduct. After protracted proceedings involving internal hearings, review applications, arbitration, the Labour Court, and ultimately the Supreme Court in SC 34/22, the Supreme Court set aside all previous proceedings. Subsequently, the second respondent (a Labour Officer) proceeded to quantify damages and ordered Pioneer Africa Limited and Pioneer Coaches Private Limited to pay the first respondent arrear salary of USD2,902,078.51. The applicant claimed it was never the employer, arguing that it was merely the former sole shareholder of Pioneer Coaches (Private) Limited and had disposed of its entire shareholding to The Hayima Trust in July 2017. The applicant noted an appeal to the Labour Court (case LCH 1260/24) on the same grounds while simultaneously bringing this application for a declaratur before the High Court.

• Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to issue a declaratory order in a matter that is essentially a labour dispute
• Whether the Labour Court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the existence or absence of an employment relationship between parties
• Whether the Labour Court has the power to issue declaratory orders
• Whether the dispute between the parties constitutes a labour matter

a. The point in limine that this court has no jurisdiction to hear this matter is upheld. b. The court declines jurisdiction on the basis that the dispute between the applicant and the first respondent is a labour matter. c. The application is struck off the roll with costs.

The Labour Court has exclusive jurisdiction in the first instance over all labour matters by virtue of s 89(6) of the Labour Act, read together with s 2A(3). This exclusive jurisdiction includes the power to issue declaratory orders. A dispute does not cease to be a labour matter merely because one party contends that no employment relationship exists. The determination of whether an employment relationship exists between parties is itself a labour law question falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court. The High Court's inherent jurisdiction under s 14 of the High Court Act to issue declaratory orders is limited by the Labour Court's exclusive jurisdiction over labour matters.

The court observed that the applicant's position that the Supreme Court in Nicholas Mukarati v Pioneer Coaches (Private) Limited SC 34/22 had already resolved the issue of whether an employment relationship existed was incorrect - that was not the issue the Supreme Court was seized with. The court also noted that if the Supreme Court had indeed resolved the issue, it would be inappropriate to approach the High Court seeking the same answer. The court commented that the applicant's submissions involved a textbook case of approbation and reprobation by accepting the Labour Court's jurisdiction in the pending appeal while denying it in the High Court application.

This case reinforces the well-established principle in Zimbabwean law that the Labour Court has exclusive jurisdiction over labour matters at first instance, including the power to issue declaratory orders. It clarifies that a party cannot avoid the Labour Court's exclusive jurisdiction by simply denying the existence of an employment relationship - the determination of whether such a relationship exists is itself a labour matter falling within the Labour Court's jurisdiction. The judgment is significant for preventing forum shopping and ensuring that labour disputes are channeled through the proper specialized tribunal. It also confirms that parties cannot simultaneously pursue appeals in the Labour Court while seeking declaratory relief in the High Court on the same issues, as this constitutes approbation and reprobation.