Medical Professional and Allied Workers Union & 3 Ors v Juliet Chirenje & 4 Ors

Judgment No. SC 40/22
                                                                   Civil Appeal No. SC 44/21       1


NOT REPORTABLE/DISTRIBUTABLE


EX-TEMPORE


    (1)        MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION
               (2) BOND MATENGA (3) TAURAI MAVATA (4) TECLA
                                    BARANGWE
                                     v
             (1)     JULIET CHIRENJE (2) MICHAEL SOZINYU (3)
               MUNYARADZI MAREGEDZE (4) NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT
               COUNCIL FOR THE MEDICAL AND ALLIED INDUSTRY
                 (5) MINISTER OF LABOUR AND SOCIAL WELFARE




SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE
MAVANGIRA JA, MATHONSI JA & CHITAKUNYE JA
HARARE: 25 FEBRUARY 2022



L. Madhuku, for the appellants

W. J. Giti, for the first to third respondents




            CHITAKUNYE JA: This is the unanimous decision of this Court. This is an

appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court handed down on 25 January 2021

dismissing the appellant’s claims for recognition as the legitimate Medical Professionals and

Allied Workers Union and ancillary relief.



            The court a quo found that the meetings of 30 and 31 January 2018 had been

meetings of the National Council of the Union and that not only were they properly convened but

they also constituted a quorum. It also found that there was a breach of the constitution of the
                                                                          Judgment No. SC 40/22
                                                                       Civil Appeal No. SC 44/21        2


union in convening the congress of 3 March 2018. The basis of that finding was that the notice

calling for motion items had not been given by the General Secretary. In addition, the requisite

3 months’ notice was not given.



            The court a quo rejected the appellant’s contention that the notice given earlier on

14 September 2017 which called for a congress on 16 December 2017 should be regarded as the

notice for 3 March 2018 congress. The reasons for its rejection were that there was nothing

suggesting that the aborted congress of 16 December 2017 had been postponed. Also, that there

was no extension of the lifespan of the 14 September 2017 notice and that a fresh decision for the

holding of a congress had been taken at the 30 January 2018 meeting. For that reason, there was

need for fresh compliance with article 8 of the constitution.



            On appeal, the appellants challenged the findings of the court a quo that there was

need for a fresh notice as being grossly unreasonable. In the alternative, they took the view that

the provisions of article 8 are not mandatory and a failure to comply with them should not

invalidate the congress.



            Per contra, the respondents’ position is that the provisions of article 8, which is about

the administration of the union, form the basic pillars of the constitution. A failure to comply

with the step-by-step procedure set out there-in invalidates the congress. It was submitted on

behalf of the respondents that the constitution does not provide for a resuscitation of events and

notices that have lapsed or have been abandoned.
                                                                         Judgment No. SC 40/22
                                                                      Civil Appeal No. SC 44/21    3


            This Court takes the view that the procedure for the holding of a valid congress was

not complied with in the convening of the congress of 3 March 2018. The court a quo cannot be

faulted for finding that a fresh decision to hold a congress on 3 March 2018 was taken on

30 to 31 January 2018. For that reason, a fresh compliance with the procedure was required.

The appeal has no merit. Regarding the question of costs, our view is each party should bear its

own costs. In the result it is ordered as follows:



            The appeal is hereby dismissed with each party to bear its own costs.




            MAVANGIRA JA:                                   I agree




            MATHONSI JA:                                    I agree




Wintertons, appellant’s legal practitioners

Atherstone & Cook, respondent’s legal practitioners