The High Court has dismissed preliminary objections raised by Pioneer Africa Limited, now operating as Unifreight Africa Limited, in a long-running labour dispute with former employee Charles Nyathi.
The matter, before Justice Mpokiseng Dube, concerns an application to revive a Labour Court judgment issued nearly two decades ago.
The original ruling, handed down in 2005 under case number LC/MT/27/2005 by the Labour Court of Zimbabwe, ordered the respondent to either reinstate Nyathi without loss of salary and benefits or pay damages for loss of employment. According to court papers, the respondent failed to comply with the order despite repeated demands, prompting Nyathi to seek revival of the judgment almost 19 years later.
In opposing the application, the respondent argued that the High Court of Zimbabwe lacked jurisdiction to revive a Labour Court judgment, maintaining that such orders could only be enforced through registration.
The company also contended that the matter had prescribed under provisions of the Labour Act and raised concerns regarding the correct legal identity of the cited respondent, as well as alleged non-disclosure by the applicant.
Nyathi’s legal representatives countered that the principle of superannuation — rather than prescription — applied in the matter, allowing a court order to be revived even after a long period of non-enforcement. They further argued that the Labour Court, as a tribunal with limited statutory powers, could not revive its own judgment and that the High Court possessed inherent jurisdiction to do so.
Related Stories
After reviewing submissions from both parties, Justice Dube dismissed all the preliminary objections raised by the respondent.
The court found that the High Court has inherent jurisdiction to revive a superannuated judgment. It also ruled that Nyathi had made full disclosure regarding prior proceedings in the Labour Court.
Justice Dube further held that the dispute is governed by the 30-year prescription period applicable to judgment debts under the Prescription Act, meaning the respondent’s arguments on prescription were misplaced.
The judge also noted that questions regarding the citation of the respondent were matters that could be considered by the Labour Court once the judgment had been revived.
The court ultimately dismissed all preliminary objections and ordered that the matter proceed to arguments on the merits, with costs reserved to be determined in the cause.
Nyathi was represented by Webb, Low & Barry Inc together with Ben Baron & Partners, while Mafongoya and Matapura Law Practice appeared for the respondent.
Leave Comments