The High Court of Zimbabwe has declined to entertain an urgent application by a bank chief executive seeking to stop internal disciplinary proceedings, ruling that the matter falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the labour dispute resolution system.

In a judgment handed down on March 17, Justice Mambara dismissed an urgent chamber application filed by Mandas Marikanda, who sought an interim interdict to bar her employer, Zimbabwe Women’s Microfinance Bank Limited, from proceeding with a disciplinary hearing pending the determination of a separate declaratory application.

Marikanda, the bank’s Chief Executive Officer, had been suspended with full pay and benefits on March 4 and summoned to a disciplinary hearing initially scheduled for March 11. She argued that the move violated an earlier magistrates’ court order issued in August 2025, which barred board chairperson Ruth Makombe from interfering with her scope of work.

Through her lawyers, Marikanda told the court that allowing the disciplinary process to proceed would render her pending High Court application academic. She maintained that the case was not purely a labour dispute but centred on enforcing an existing court order.

However, counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary point challenging the court’s jurisdiction, arguing that the dispute arose from an employment relationship and concerned suspension and disciplinary action, matters governed by labour law.

The respondents relied on the TN Harlequin Luxaire Ltd v Matsvimbo ruling, in which the Supreme Court affirmed that labour matters fall within the exclusive first-instance jurisdiction of the Labour Court.

They further submitted that the disciplinary process had been authorised by a board resolution and that the chairperson acted in her official capacity, not personally. Makombe also indicated she had not been served with the earlier magistrates’ court order and was taking steps to challenge it.

In his ruling, Justice Mambara held that the key issue was whether the High Court could intervene to stop disciplinary proceedings initiated by an employer.

He emphasised that jurisdiction is determined by the substance of the dispute rather than how it is framed, noting that both the interim and final relief sought were aimed at halting an internal disciplinary process.

“The immediate juridical incident complained of is the applicant’s suspension and the convening of disciplinary proceedings,” the judge said, describing these as “classic labour and employment incidents” regulated by labour law.

The court found that, despite attempts to characterise the matter as one involving enforcement of a prior court order, the dispute remained fundamentally a labour issue.

Justice Mambara reiterated that, in terms of the Labour Act, only the Labour Court has jurisdiction at first instance to determine employment-related disputes. He also dismissed arguments that the High Court’s power to grant declaratory relief could override this framework.

The ruling effectively clears the way for the bank to proceed with disciplinary action against Marikanda, subject to labour law processes.

Costs were sought against the applicant, with the respondents arguing for a higher scale, though the final order on costs was not immediately detailed in the excerpt of the judgment.