Mercy Dare N.O. v Daniel Mavhenge and Others

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/201/23
HARARE, 29 MARCH, 2023
CASE NO. LC/H/1089/22
AND 13 JULY 2023
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/201/23

HARARE, 29 MARCH, 2023	CASE NO. LC/H/1089/22 
AND 13 JULY 2023

MERCY DARE N.O.	APPLICANT

Versus

DANIEL MAVHENGE	1ST RESPONDENT

BENITO MUTASA	2ND RESPONDENT

DAVID MUDZINGA	3RD RESPONDENT

ZIMBABWE POSTS (PVT) LTD.	4TH RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable Kudya J;

For the Applicant	In person

For the 1st to 3rd Respondents	B. JulaJulah (Legal Practitioner)

For the 4th Respondent	P. Dube (Legal Practitioner)

KUDYA J:

This is an application for the confirmation of the ruling by a Labour Officer in a labour dispute between Daniel Mavhenge and 2 Others and Zimpost. Mavhenge and his colleagues filed with the labour officer a claim of unlawful dismissal and non-payment of arrear salaries, cash in lieu of leave and terminal benefits. The Labour Officer ruled that the matter was res judicata as the Supreme Court had decided the issue of unlawful dismissal. She also reasoned that the claim for terminal benefits had prescribed. For those 2 reasons she reasoned that she lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the issues placed before her. She thus seeks to have this court confirm her ruling in that respect.

Zimpost is opposed to the confirmation of the position taken by the Labour Officer. It argues that the Supreme Court judgment was between Tel One and Communication and Allied Services Workers Union of which Mavhenge and his colleagues were members of. In its view that judgment therefore pertained to the same parties. It reasons therefore that Mavhenge and his colleague have sought to revisit a matter already decided by the Supreme Court. It concludes that the Labour Officer was therefore right to decline jurisdiction city res judicata and prescription. It therefore supports the prayer for the confirmation of a ruling.

The tenets of res judicata are settled Mutsahuni v Ministry of Lands HC-H-407-21. A eading of the SC-26-06 shows clearly that the issue before the Supreme Court was the unlawful ob action within which Mavhenge and his colleagues' participated. In the ruling by the Supreme

ourt therefore determined the fate of the members of the Union in this case. Mavhenge and olleagues included. It is thus unfounded to argue that these were separate cause of action.

avhenge and colleagues say they went before the Labour Officer to curtail a continuing unfair 1. bour practice. What unfair labour practice could they seek to curtail yet their fate had been clearly ealed by the Supreme Court. There is clean nexus between the claim which Mavhenge and his olleagues took before the Labour Officer and the Supreme Court judgment. It was therefore not r miss for the labour officer to decline jurisdiction on the basis of res judicata and prescription.

he court is therefore satisfied that there is, no basis to ask that the labour officer's ruling be v cated.

IT IS ORDERD THAT

Application for the confirmation of a ruling in the matter between Daniel Mavhenge and • thers and Zimpost being well founded it be and is hereby granted. Ruling in the matter between avhenge and Others and Zimpost be and is hereby confirmed.

Julajulah Law Chambers, 1st —3rd Respondent's Legal Practitioners Dube, Manikai and Hwacha, 4th Respondent's Legal Practitioners