Zimbabwe Supreme Court Clarifies Direct Labour Court Access for Dismissed Workers
HARARE – In a significant ruling that clarifies pathways for aggrieved employees, Zimbabwe’s Supreme Court has affirmed that workers dismissed under registered employment codes can now appeal directly to the Labour Court without the mandatory prerequisite of first engaging a labour officer. This landmark decision, delivered on September 30, 2026, resolves a protracted legal dispute stemming from the dismissal of a Delta Beverages machine operator.
The Supreme Court’s judgment dismissed an appeal by Delta Beverages (Private) Limited, which had contended that the former employee, Mufaro Muchetu, was obligated to exhaust the statutory remedy of approaching a labour officer before escalating his dismissal dispute to the Labour Court. The apex court, however, held that the two routes available under sections 92D and 101(5) of the Labour Act are complementary, granting an aggrieved party the discretion to choose between a direct appeal to the Labour Court or conciliation via a labour officer.
The case originated from the dismissal of Muchetu, a machine operator at Delta Beverages’ Southerton plant, following allegations of operating machinery while under the influence of alcohol on November 8, 2024. After being tested and found to have a high blood alcohol concentration, Muchetu was charged and subsequently dismissed after disciplinary proceedings and an unsuccessful appeal to the Works Council. Muchetu then appealed to the Labour Court, arguing that mitigating circumstances had not been adequately considered and that a final warning would have been a more appropriate sanction.
Delta Beverages raised a preliminary objection, asserting that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction due to Muchetu’s failure to first engage a labour officer, citing the Labour Amendment Act of 2023 which, they argued, introduced a mandatory domestic remedy. The Labour Court had previously rejected this argument, ruling that Muchetu had the election to approach a labour officer or appeal directly under section 92D.
Before the Supreme Court, the central question revolved around whether section 101(5) mandated exhaustion of the labour officer route and if the newer provision implicitly repealed section 92D. The Supreme Court unequivocally rejected both contentions. Justice Rita Makarau, presiding with Justices of Appeal Antonia Guvava, Samuel Kudya, and Hapias Zhou, emphasised that section 92D explicitly grants the Labour Court appellate jurisdiction over disciplinary decisions made under registered employment codes.
The court clarified that section 101(5), while allowing an aggrieved party to approach a labour officer for conciliation within 30 days, does not confer appellate powers on the labour officer to overturn disciplinary decisions. A labour officer’s role is limited to conciliation or, if parties agree, arbitration. The Supreme Court underscored that this route is designed as a more accessible and cost-effective mechanism for dispute resolution, particularly benefiting employees with limited resources. The ruling reinforces the principle that the doctrine of exhaustion of domestic remedies is inapplicable where the purported remedy lacks the jurisdiction to determine the merits of a dispute. Consequently, Delta Beverages’ appeal was dismissed with costs, upholding the Labour Court’s jurisdiction to hear Muchetu’s direct appeal. This decision provides crucial clarity for employers and employees navigating labour disputes, streamlining access to judicial redress.
