In November 2021, the Zimbabwe Rural District Council Workers' Union (applicant) brought twelve substantially identical chamber applications to the High Court seeking registration of determinations/awards issued by designated agents employed by the National Employment Council for Rural District Councils. The designated agents had issued awards in favour of the applicant requiring various rural district councils to remit union dues equivalent to 25% of the value of collective bargaining agreements negotiated by the applicant on behalf of all employees, including non-members. The awards were issued by default as the rural district councils did not contest the claims. The applicant sought to have these awards registered as orders of the High Court for enforcement purposes. The applicant acknowledged that no specific statutory provision existed for such registration, but argued that the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to register the awards, relying on section 14 of the High Court Act and section 63(3a) of the Labour Act.
All twelve applications dismissed. The court declined to exercise inherent jurisdiction to register the designated agents' determinations as orders of the High Court.
The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, though extensive, does not extend to creating new procedural mechanisms for the registration of awards from statutory quasi-judicial bodies where neither statute nor common law provides for such registration. Inherent jurisdiction is not a power to legislate or invent new laws, but rather to extend existing common law principles to novel situations within established legal frameworks. Where the Legislature has deliberately and explicitly provided for registration of certain types of awards (Labour Court judgments, arbitral awards) but excluded others (designated agents' determinations), the court will not use inherent jurisdiction to fill that gap. Registration of awards from quasi-judicial bodies requires express statutory authority.
Mafusire J observed that the situation appeared to be a legislative oversight and expressed the view that Parliament could easily remedy the gap by making simple amendments to the Labour Act to provide for enforcement of designated agents' rulings. Both judges suggested the applicant was not without remedy, as the determinations could form the basis of ordinary court proceedings similar to liquid documents. Chilimbe J noted that it was questionable whether the Legislature intended to relegate a statutorily appointed adjudicator's award to the status of a debt collector's IOU or similar commercial debt instrument, and emphasized there was an obvious need for the Legislature to correct the anomaly. The court also commented critically on the conduct of the applicant's legal practitioners who failed to attend a chambers hearing scheduled by the court and instead sent heads of argument that missed the point of the court's concerns.
This case provides important guidance on the limits of the inherent jurisdiction of superior courts in Zimbabwe. It establishes that despite the Constitutional Court's confirmation in Isoquant Investments (ZIMOCO) that designated agents have authority to issue final and binding determinations, the High Court will not use its inherent jurisdiction to create a registration mechanism where the Legislature has not provided one. The judgment emphasizes judicial restraint and deference to the Legislature in matters requiring procedural law reform. It is significant for distinguishing between inherent jurisdiction (authority to hear matters) and inherent powers (procedural and substantive powers to regulate processes and develop common law). The case highlights a lacuna in the Labour Act regarding enforcement of designated agents' awards and calls for legislative intervention.