Zimbabwe Post (Pvt) Ltd v Broadwell Chigere

The respondent was employed by the applicant as a counter clerk stationed at Victoria Falls Post Office. While employed, he was provided with company accommodation at House No. 15 Baines Road, Victoria Falls. In October 1998, the respondent was charged with misconduct under the applicant's Code of Conduct. He was found guilty by the Regional Hearing Committee and dismissed. The respondent appealed through various levels: the National Hearing Committee upheld the dismissal, but the Ministry of Labour ruled in his favour ordering reinstatement or damages. The Labour Relations Officer also ruled in favour of the respondent. The applicant appealed to the Labour Court but withdrew the appeal, opting to pay damages in lieu of reinstatement. The Labour Court on 27 May 2005 directed the applicant to pay the respondent's salaries up to 22 May 2001 and damages equivalent to six months' salaries. The applicant attempted to pay the respondent by registered mail and through a personal visit by an Industrial Relations Officer, but the respondent initially refused payment. After corrections to the Labour Court judgment in April 2006, the respondent eventually accepted payment on 3 June 2006. Despite his employment being terminated and compensation paid, the respondent refused to vacate the company accommodation and was subletting it to persons outside the applicant's employ.

• Whether the respondent had the right to continue occupying company accommodation after his employment was terminated and he received compensation in lieu of reinstatement
• Whether the applicant was entitled to an eviction order against the respondent
• Whether the finality of the Labour Court judgment bound the parties and terminated the employment relationship

The court granted the application with costs, ordering the eviction of the respondent and all those claiming occupation through him from House No. 15 Baines Road, Victoria Falls.

The binding legal principle established is that an employee's right to occupy company-provided accommodation is derived solely from the employment relationship. Once that employment relationship is conclusively terminated by a final and binding judgment of the Labour Court, and compensation in lieu of reinstatement is paid and accepted, the former employee has no legal basis to continue occupying the employer's property. The employer is entitled to an eviction order to recover possession of such property.

The court observed that President Nare had 'properly dismissed' the respondent's application to rescind or alter the earlier judgment, suggesting approval of that decision. The court also commented that the correction made by consent regarding typographical errors in the original judgment was inconsequential, noting that 'nothing of substance turned on this correction of a typographical error.' The court expressed implicit criticism of the respondent's continued occupation and subletting of the property, noting he was subletting to persons outside the applicant's employ, which exceeded even the limited rights he might have had as a former employee.

This case establishes important principles regarding the rights of former employees to occupy employer-provided accommodation after termination of employment. It confirms that company accommodation is provided as an incident of employment and once employment terminates (even where compensation is paid in lieu of reinstatement), the former employee has no continuing right to occupy such premises. The case also demonstrates the application of res judicata principles in labour disputes, showing that once a Labour Court judgment becomes final and binding (with no appeal or review lodged), parties must accept its finality and comply with its terms.