By Own Correspondent

THE  Supreme Court has determined that the Labour Court cannot issue declaratory orders unless this power is specifically granted by legislation.

This decision reversed an earlier judgment that declared dismissed Masvingo City Council Engineer Tawanda Gozo to still be an employee after the Local Government Board refused to approve his dismissal.

Justice Happias Zhou explained that the Labour Court does not have original jurisdiction to provide declaratory relief, noting that neither the Labour Act nor other laws explicitly authorize it. As a result, the Supreme Court allowed the council’s appeal, set aside the Labour Court’s decision, and replaced it with an order withholding jurisdiction—without awarding costs to either party.

This ruling highlights the statutory limits of the Labour Court, while reaffirming that the High Court alone can issue declarations of legal rights, including in employment disputes.

The conflict began when Eng Gozo, as the council’s director of engineering, was dismissed following disciplinary proceedings for alleged poor management of the city’s water supply. Under section 123(1)(c) of the Urban Councils Act, such dismissals require the Local Government Board’s approval. In September 2022, the board’s chairman refused to approve Gozo’s dismissal and ordered his reinstatement with full benefits.

The Council challenged this successfully in the High Court, which directed the chairman only to decide on the dismissal’s approval or rejection.

On July 2, 2024, the board again refused approval but did not reinstate Gozo, who later reported for work believing he was still employed but was sent home after two days. The council insisted his dismissal stood.

Gozo applied to the Labour Court for a declaration that the board’s refusal meant he remained employed. The Labour Court ruled in his favour, but the council appealed, arguing the court had no power to grant declaratory orders under section 89 of the Labour Act.

While Gozo’s lawyer, Professor Lovemore Madhuku, argued that the Constitution and Labour Act empowered the court to resolve such employment disputes, the Supreme Court disagreed. It found that Parliament must expressly empower any court to grant declaratory relief and that the Labour Court’s powers are defined by statute, unlike the High Court, which is specifically authorized under section 14 of the High Court Act.

The Supreme Court noted conflicting prior rulings and said the Constitutional Court may ultimately need to resolve the issue. Notably, the court did not decide whether Gozo should remain employed, leaving that question for a properly authorized court.

Ultimately, the judgment underscores the need for employers and workers to seek remedies in the correct legal forum. The Labour Court’s previous ruling was set aside, the appeal was allowed, and no costs were ordered.