The respondent was employed by the appellant as a Club Secretary. On 21 April 1997, Superintendent Amenities (Mamera) applied to the Ministry of Labour to terminate the respondent's employment. On 23 April 1997, Mamera suspended the respondent pending determination by the Ministry of Labour. The grounds were that during a spot check by internal auditors, the respondent failed to account for $6,939.98, and he was the only person with access to the safe containing the money. He had also unlawfully lent $3,500 of the appellant's money to a fellow employee. A Labour Relations Officer conducted a hearing on 5 September 1997 and granted the termination application after hearing evidence from two auditors. The respondent appealed to a Senior Labour Relations Officer, who dismissed the appeal. He then appealed to the Labour Court, which allowed the appeal on the basis that the suspension was a nullity because it was done by Mamera and not by the Board of Trustees, the actual employer.
The appeal was allowed. The order of the Labour Court was set aside and the determination of the Senior Labour Relations Officer was reinstated. The appellant's dismissal of the respondent was confirmed.
Where an agent acts on behalf of a principal (employer) without prior authority to suspend an employee and apply for dismissal, such actions are not illegal or void but merely voidable at the instance of the principal. If the principal subsequently ratifies the agent's actions, such ratification has retrospective effect and validates the suspension and application for dismissal from the time they were made. Where a constitution or governing document does not prescribe a specific procedure for dismissal, failure to follow a non-existent procedure cannot render dismissal actions ultra vires or a nullity.
The Court observed that if the Club's Constitution had provided a specific procedure for removal from office of the Secretary and Mamera had failed to follow that procedure, then his action would have been a nullity for failure to comply with the Constitution. The Court also noted that the fact that Mamera was confused or mistaken as to who was the correct employer of the respondent did not alter the fact that he was acting for a principal or purported principal.
This case establishes important principles regarding agency law in the employment context in Zimbabwean law. It clarifies that actions taken by an agent without prior authority are not automatically nullities but are voidable, and can be retrospectively validated through ratification by the principal. The case also distinguishes between situations where a constitution or governing document prescribes specific procedures (which must be followed) versus situations where no such procedures exist. The judgment reinforces the principle that ratification of an agent's unauthorized actions has retrospective effect, validating the actions from the time they were taken.