Zimbabwe Revenue Authority Trade Union and Zimbabwe Revenue Authority National Worker's Union Committee v The Public Service Commission and Zimbabwe Revenue Authority

Members of the applicant trade unions were previously employed by the first respondent (Public Service Commission). When the second respondent (Zimbabwe Revenue Authority - ZIMRA) was created in 2001, these employees were transferred to ZIMRA. The second respondent offered new employment contracts to these former employees without recognizing their years of service rendered to the first respondent. The applicants sought compensation or recognition of their members' years of service with the first respondent. The Labour Court had previously ruled in the applicants' favor, ordering ZIMRA to recognize the qualifying service of all former employees. That judgment was subject to appeal in the Supreme Court (SC 284/11 and SC 263/09). The second applicant filed a notice of abandonment of the Labour Court judgment in the Supreme Court on 13 March 2012, stating they would initiate new proceedings with correct citation of parties. The applicants then brought the current application before the High Court seeking similar relief.

• Whether the application constituted lis pendens (pending litigation) given the Supreme Court appeal
• Whether the applicants could abandon a judgment in their favor while the second respondent's appeal against that judgment was still pending
• Whether section 124 of the Labour Act prohibiting multiple proceedings on the same matter applied
• Whether the High Court could adjudicate a matter already determined by the Labour Court and subject to appeal

The application was dismissed with costs.

Where proceedings on a matter have been instituted, completed or determined by a competent court, section 124 of the Labour Act prohibits further proceedings on the same or related matter. A party who has obtained a favorable judgment cannot effectively abandon that judgment while an appeal against it remains pending, and then institute fresh proceedings on the same subject matter before a different court. The addition of parties or rewording of relief does not change the essential subject matter of the dispute. A judgment remains extant until set aside by an appellate court, and a party cannot abandon an appeal on behalf of their opponent. The doctrine of lis pendens applies where an appeal on the same matter between the same parties remains pending before the Supreme Court.

The court observed that under common law it may be possible to abandon a judgment, but such a judgment would remain intact though incapable of execution. The court noted that apart from section 41 of the Magistrate Court Act, there was no statutory provision found allowing for abandonment of judgments in the manner attempted by the applicants. The court commented that the applicants had, on their own volition, decided not to take advantage of the relief granted them by the Labour Court and had waived their right to execute on that judgment. The court also remarked that the second respondent's right to be before the Supreme Court could not be interfered with.

This case is significant in South African and Zimbabwean labour law jurisprudence as it clarifies the operation of the principle against multiple proceedings (lis pendens) in labour matters. It establishes that parties cannot circumvent an unfavorable appeal by abandoning a judgment in their favor and re-litigating the same matter with minor variations in citation. The case reinforces the importance of section 124 of the Labour Act's protection against duplicative proceedings and confirms that parties must respect the appellate process. It also clarifies the limited circumstances under which judgments can be abandoned and emphasizes that abandonment of a judgment by the successful party does not automatically terminate an appeal noted by the unsuccessful party.