William Bain & Company Holdings (Private) Limited v Amon Nyamukunda

The respondent was employed by the applicant for 16 years, rising from a low-level employee to branch manager for Marondera. As part of his conditions of service, he was allocated a Ford Ranger 1800 pick-up (registration AAO 4838) and a company house at No. 1088 Fairview Crescent, Winston Park, Marondera at a nominal rental of US$20 per month. On 16 May 2011, the respondent resigned from employment and requested to purchase the motor vehicle he was using. The applicant refused to sell the vehicle and demanded that he surrender it and vacate the company house. The respondent refused to surrender either the vehicle or the house. A dispute arose regarding whether the respondent had resigned or been dismissed, which the Labour Court resolved in favour of the respondent, finding that he had resigned. The applicant then brought this application seeking an order compelling the respondent to surrender the vehicle and vacate the house.

• Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter or whether jurisdiction was ousted by section 89(6) of the Labour Act in favour of the Labour Court
• Whether the respondent had any legal entitlement to retain the motor vehicle pending a potential purchase
• Whether the respondent was entitled to remain in the employer's house until payment of terminal benefits
• Whether the applicant was entitled to vindicate its property from the former employee

1. The respondent, or any person possessing through him, shall within 48 hours of service of the order surrender to the applicant the Ford Ranger 1800 registration number AAO 4838, failing which the Sheriff for Zimbabwe is authorized to take possession and hand it over to the applicant. 2. The respondent and all those claiming occupation through him shall vacate No. 1088 Fairview Crescent, Winston Park, Marondera within two days of service of the order, failing which the Sheriff is authorized to evict them and handover possession to the applicant. 3. The respondent shall bear the costs of suit.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) The High Court retains jurisdiction to hear common law claims such as rei vindicatio where the employment relationship has been terminated and that termination is not in dispute, notwithstanding section 89(6) of the Labour Act; (2) The Labour Court's exclusive jurisdiction applies only where the cause of action and remedy are both provided for in the Labour Act; where these are located in common law, the High Court exercises jurisdiction; (3) A prospective purchaser has no legal entitlement to retain possession of property against the seller's wishes prior to conclusion of a sale agreement and delivery of the merx; (4) A former employee has no legal right to retain a former employer's property pending payment of terminal benefits; (5) The rei vindicatio can lie at the instance of an employer against a former employee where the status of the former employee is without dispute.

The court noted with disapproval what it characterized as "the height of turpitude" for the respondent to hold onto both the vehicle and house years after termination of the employment contract when he had no legal rights over the properties. The court also observed that the respondent's opposing affidavit "betrays the level of acrimony in the relationship between the parties." The court described the respondent's jurisdictional argument as "tired and limping" given that the Labour Court dispute had already been resolved and did not concern the issues before the High Court. The court commended the respondent for rising through the ranks from a low-level employee to branch manager during his 16-year employment.

This case clarifies the jurisdictional boundary between the High Court and the Labour Court in Zimbabwe. It establishes that once an employment relationship has been terminated and that termination is no longer in dispute, the High Court has jurisdiction to hear common law claims such as rei vindicatio (vindication of property) by a former employer against a former employee. The case reinforces the principle that the Labour Court's exclusive jurisdiction under the Labour Act is limited to matters specifically provided for in the Act, and does not extend to common law remedies where the employment relationship has ended. The case also confirms that a former employee has no right to retain an employer's property as leverage for payment of terminal benefits or on the basis of a potential but unconconcluded sale agreement.