ZB Retrenchees v Zimbabwe Broadcasting Holdings

On 19 June 2002, the applicants (retrenched employees) and the respondent (Zimbabwe Broadcasting Holdings) entered into a written retrenchment package agreement. The agreement provided for various benefits including payment in lieu of notice, abolition of office compensation, cash in lieu of leave, stabilization/gratuity (25 months gross salary times years served), long service awards, relocation allowance, medical aid support, pension, license fee exemptions based on years of service, preferential recalls, and accommodation. Disputes arose regarding implementation of the agreement, particularly concerning pension payments. The matter went to arbitration where the arbitrator found in favor of the applicants and ordered the respondent to honour the agreement. The respondent appealed to the Labour Court where MAKAMURE J upheld the appeal and found the respondent had freely entered into the agreement and was bound by its terms. The respondent then appealed to the Supreme Court, which was still pending. Further disputes arose about whether the retrenchment package had been paid in full. The applicants approached the High Court seeking a declaratur.

• Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter or whether it fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court
• Whether the dispute constituted a dispute of right as defined in section 2 of the Labour Act
• Whether the Labour Court had power to grant a declaratur
• Whether an applicant could circumvent the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court by framing their relief as a declaratur when the dispute was essentially a labour matter

1) The application is dismissed. 2) The applicants to pay the respondent's costs.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) The nature of the application and the underlying dispute, not exclusively the relief sought, determines which court has jurisdiction; (2) A dispute concerning an employer's failure to implement a collective bargaining agreement or comply with a Labour Court determination constitutes an unfair labour practice and a dispute of right under sections 2 and 8 of the Labour Act; (3) Parties cannot circumvent the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court by labeling their application as a request for a declaratur when the substance of the matter is a labour dispute falling within the Labour Court's jurisdiction; (4) Courts must examine the true nature and substance of a dispute rather than accepting the label placed on it by the parties; (5) All labour matters, unless specifically excluded, must be dealt with by the Labour Court in accordance with the principle established in Tuso v City of Harare.

The court noted that having found the High Court lacked jurisdiction, it was unnecessary to deal with the other points in limine raised by the respondent, namely: (1) that the matter was lis alibi pendens (pending elsewhere - referring to the Supreme Court appeal); and (2) that the applicants had sued a non-existing entity. The judgment also contains observations about the complementary relationship between the High Court Act and the Labour Act, though ultimately the court found that the Labour Court's exclusive jurisdiction prevailed in this instance.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean labour law jurisprudence as it clarifies the boundaries between the High Court and Labour Court jurisdiction. It reinforces the principle that parties cannot circumvent the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court by framing labour disputes as applications for declaraturs in the High Court. The case emphasizes that courts must look at the substance and nature of the dispute rather than merely the form of relief sought. It reaffirms the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court over labour disputes as established in previous Zimbabwean case law, while also recognizing the limited powers of the Labour Court to grant only those remedies specifically authorized by statute.