Nyanga Rural District Council v Zimbabwe Rural District Council Workers Union

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF
JUDGMENT No: LC/H/421/25
ZIMBABWE HELD AT HARARE, 28
CASE No: LC/H/833/25
OCTOBER 2025
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE HELD AT HARARE, 28 OCTOBER 2025

JUDGMENT No: LC/H/421/25

CASE No: LC/H/833/25

AND

In the matter between: -

NYANGA RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL	APPELLANT AND

ZIMBABWE RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL WORKERS UNION	RESPONDENT

COURT RULING

Before the Honourable Mr Justice Jaravani J Harare, 28 October 2025.

For the Appellant: Mr T.S Musundire For the Respondent: Mr F Muzeya JARAVANI J:

Opposed Appeal

Ex Tempore

This is an appeal against an Arbitral Award. The Arbitral Award was granted by an arbitrator against the Appellant for payment of various amounts indicated at page 9 of the record. The first amount was for payment of arrear salary increment of 15% for the period from July 2020 to September 2024. The second amount was for union dues for July 2020 to September 2024 and the third amount was for a 25% surcharge from non-members.

The appeal was based on three grounds. The Appellant’s legal practitioner abandoned the 1st and 2nd grounds of appeal during the hearing after several queries raised by the Court. The Respondent had also raised a point in limine that the grounds of appeal raised questions of fact not questions of law. The Respondent also submitted that the grounds of appeal are couched in terminology appropriate for grounds of review not grounds of appeal.

The Court was of the view that it is prudent and proper to first determine the validity of the grounds of appeal before presiding over all the other issues- Zimbabwe Open University v Ndekwere 2019

(2) ZLR 480(S). The Appellant submitted that the third ground of appeal raised a question of law.

It so submitted on the basis that the establishment of whether an employment contract existed between the Appellant and the employees who were beneficiaries of the amount in the third ground of appeal is a question of law. It further submitted that it is an issue of contract.

The third ground of appeal reads as follows; -

‘The Appellant submits that the Honourable Arbitrator grossly erred at law by making a determination that the Appellant should pay US$16 552.35 as 25% surcharge for non-members when some of the non-members listed in the claim left the Appellant’s employ and some were never employed by the Appellant.’

The third ground of appeal calls upon the Court to determine the entitlement of the Respondent to the amount awarded by the arbitrator as reflected in the third ground of appeal. The Court’s determination of that issue hinges on whether or not some of the employees referred to in the third ground of appeal were in the employ of the Appellant and whether some of them were never employed by the Appellant. A finding on this issue enables the Court to determine the issue raised in the third ground of appeal.

The issues of whether some of the employees referred to in the third ground of appeal had left the Appellant’s employment and whether some of them were never employed by the Appellant are issues of fact. For grounds of appeal based on issues of fact the Appellant was supposed to allege irrationality or gross unreasonableness which it never did in its third ground of appeal.

The Court finds that the Appellant’s 3rd ground of appeal raises a question of fact. The third ground of appeal does not allege any misdirection or irrationality on the part of the arbitrator. The allegation of gross error at law in the third ground of appeal is not an allegation of gross misdirection of fact. That allegation cannot be elevated to an allegation of irrationality or misdirection since the third ground of appeal raises a question of fact.

In the premises, the third ground of appeal is hereby struck off the roll.

Costs should necessarily follow the result. There is no reason to deviate from that general rule. The Appellant shall pay the Respondent’s costs of suit. The appeal having been struck off the roll, it is no longer necessary for the Court to determine the application for amendment of the prayer in the relief sought and the other issues that were raised in the proceedings.

It is therefore Ordered that; -

The appeal is hereby struck off the roll with costs.

Warara and Associates for the Appellant. Lawman Law Chambers for the Respondent.