Zimbabwe Rural District Council Workers Union v Buhera Rural District Council & Anor

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/361/25
ZIMBABWE HELD AT HARARE 6
SEPTEMBER 2025
CASE NUMBER LC/H/797/25
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE HELD AT HARARE 6 SEPTEMBER 2025

JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/361/25 CASE NUMBER LC/H/797/25

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

ZIMBABWE RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL

WORKERS UNION	APPLICANT

AND

BUHERA RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL	1ST RESPONDENT DOUGLAS CHINOPEREKWEI N.O.	2ND RESPONDENT

Before Honourable Mr. Justice L.M. Murasi

IN CHAMBERS

MURASI J.,

On 19 March 2025, in Case Number LC/H/122/25, this Court rendered a judgment in which the First Respondent sought to impugn the decision of the arbitrator. This Court granted the Application for Review and set aside the decision of the Arbitrator of 17 December 2024. The Court also ordered that Applicant pay to First Respondent costs on the ordinary scale.

Applicant was disgruntled with the decision of this Court as it intended to have the matter heard by the Supreme Court. Applicant was out of time. What Applicant should have done was apply for condonation of the late filing of an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. In that case, Applicant filed what it termed as a “Conjoined Application for condonation and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court” in Case Number LC/H/519/25. First Respondent raised a preliminary point to the effect that the procedure adopted by the Applicant was alien to the Labour Act and the Labour Court Rules. The Court agreed with the submissions of the First Respondent and proceeded to strike the matter off the roll as it was improperly before the Court.

The issue of costs came up for discussion. First Respondent raised the issue that Applicant had not paid costs even in a matter it had Withdrawn and tendered costs. It was further submitted that Applicant was just filing case after case and not complying with the Court Orders that it should pay costs. This Court made the following Order as regards costs:

“3. Applicant to meet First Respondent’s costs on an attorney/client scale.

4. Applicant shall not institute proceedings in this Court against the First Respondent, on the same cause of action without complying with paragraph 3 above or filing evidence of waiver of such non-compliance from the First Respondent.”

Applicant has filed the present application without complying with the Order in Case Number LCH/519/25 above.

Applicant’s Founding Affidavit contains the following averments as regards the issue of paying costs:

“8.3 The grant o0f the Order for costs on the higher scale was unwarranted considering the Applicant had Acted on the authority of superior Court precedents thus even if it were wrong it was not egregiously wrong as to warrant such an Order.

8.4 The Labour Court not being a Court of inherent jurisdiction cannot grant a cost order preventing filing of new proceedings conditional upon payment of costs.”

Rule 39 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017 provides for the issue of costs. Rule 39 (3) provides:

“If the court or a judge considers that the conduct of a party to an appeal or application under these rules has been such as to warrant such a course, the court may make any one or more of the following orders-

(a)..

(b)..

(c) ordering a party to pay costs on a legal practitioner and client scale or on any other appropriate scale.”

Further, Rule 39 (6) provides:

“This rule shall not derogate from the power of the court or a judge to make any other order or give any direction, whether as to costs or otherwise, arising out of the conduct of parties or legal practitioners.”

This Court will not seek to interpret the provisions of the above cited Rule as they are unambiguous and the meaning is clear and therefore warrants no aid to its interpretation.

The clear picture is that the Applicant has, judging from the contents of the Founding Affidavit referred to elsewhere in this judgment, taken a conscious position not to abide by the Order of the Court.

In Hardkinson v Hardkinson [1952] 2 All ER 567 (CA), the following was stated:

“It is the plain and unqualified obligation of every person against or in respect of whom an order is made by a court of competent jurisdiction to obey it unless and until that order is discharged. The uncompromising nature of the obligation is shown by the fact that it even extends to where the person affected believes it to be irregular or even void.”

In Minister of Justice, Legal & Parliamentary Affairs v Juliana Muskwe & 4 Others SC 67/22, KUDYA JA had this to say:

“This in my view, is a sure sign that the order must be obeyed. This subsection codifies the common law principle that court orders must be obeyed. The principle was articulated by LORD RADCLIFF in Smith v East Elloe Rural District Council [1956] AC 736 at 769 thus:

‘An order, even if not made in good faith, is still an act capable of legal consequences. It bears np brand of illegality on its forehead. Unless the necessary procedures are taken at law to establish the cause of invalidity and to get it quashed or otherwise upset, it will remain as effective for its ostensible purpose as the most impeccable of orders.’”

Further, in IN RE: Prosecutor general of Zimbabwe on His Constitutional Independence and Protection from Direction and Control CCZ 13/17, PATEL JCC made the following observations:

“For the applicant to refuse to obey court orders and then to avoid answering the critical question as to why he has not, is tantamount to exhibiting flagrant contempt of this court. This type of contempt in facie curiae cannot be countenanced by the Court. We have a duty to protect our processes from abuse and scandalous impunity.”

I am of the considered view that there is no reason to depart from the well-reasoned precedents cited above. Applicant is bent on contemptuously refusing to comply with a court order which is extant.

The following Order is appropriate.

The application is hereby struck off the roll by reason of Applicant’s non-compliance with the Court Order in Case Number LC/H/519/25.

There is no order as to costs.