Untu Microfinance Private Limited v Tinotenda Musiyazviriyo

The respondent was employed by the appellant and resigned by giving 7 days' notice instead of the requisite 3 months' notice required by section 12(4)(a) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. The appellant demanded payment of US$1,402.25 being the amount due in lieu of the 3 months' notice not served. The respondent admitted liability via email (exhibits 5 and 6) and offered to pay by instalments but failed to do so. When payment was not forthcoming, the appellant instituted summons claiming the amount. In her defence, the respondent argued the handover process had been properly completed and therefore there was no prejudice to the employer. At trial, the respondent admitted owing the amount and confirmed making an offer to pay, and that there was no waiver of the notice period by the employer. The court a quo dismissed the claim on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction as this was a labour matter falling under the Labour Act.

• Whether the court a quo had jurisdiction to hear a claim arising from an employment relationship that had been terminated
• Whether the acknowledgment of debt by the respondent created a new cause of action in contract separate from the labour law dispute
• Whether the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] applies to disputes between former employers and former employees after termination of employment

The appeal was upheld with costs. The court a quo's ruling was set aside and substituted with: "Judgment be and is hereby entered in favour of the plaintiff in the sum of US $1,402.35 together with interest thereon at the rate of 5% per annum from the 25th of February 2014 to date of final payment."

When an employment relationship has been terminated and a former employee acknowledges in writing a debt arising from that employment relationship (such as payment in lieu of notice not served), a new cause of action based on the law of contract is created, separate and distinct from any labour law dispute. Such an acknowledgment of debt falls within the jurisdiction of the ordinary civil courts and is not governed exclusively by the Labour Act, even though the debt originated from an employment relationship. The court has jurisdiction to adjudicate such contractual debt claims between former employers and former employees.

The Court observed that the respondent appeared to believe there were other issues to be considered relating to her former employer's recruitment practices (recruiting from outside the company when positions arose internally), which seemed to have frustrated her. However, these matters were not relevant to the single issue referred for trial at the pre-trial conference stage. The Court also noted approvingly the principle articulated in Homodza v Chitungwiza Municipality regarding the transformation of labour disputes into contractual matters through acknowledgment of debt.

This case establishes an important principle in Zimbabwean labour and contract law regarding the jurisdiction of courts once an employment relationship has terminated and a debt has been acknowledged. It clarifies that when a former employee acknowledges a debt arising from the employment relationship, a new cause of action in contract is created that falls outside the exclusive jurisdiction of labour law mechanisms. This prevents former employees from using the Labour Act as a shield against legitimate debt recovery claims where they have freely acknowledged their indebtedness. The case demonstrates the transformation of labour disputes into contractual matters through acknowledgment of debt.