Faith Gosha
Posts by Faith Gosha:
SUMMARY OF LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF RECENT LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE JUDGMENT DATED 15 NOVEMBER 2023 ABOUT A DETERMINATION BY A DESIGNATED AGENT AND LEGAL STATUS OF EMPLOYMENT COUNCILS, BY CALEB MUCHECHE
The recent Labour Court of Zimbabwe judgment in DGL Investments Number 5 (Pvt) Ltd v Martin Ndlovu and Another Judgment No. LC/MT/70/23 by the Labour Court Judge Hon. Moya-Matshanga based at Bulawayo dated 15 November 2023 creates some far reaching serious practical challenges and potential paralysis of labour dispute resolution by way of making null and void any determination by a Designated Agent (DA) employed by a the old voluntary employment councils, for the period from 14 July 2023 when Labour Amendment Act No. 11 of 2023 was passed as law by the President and Parliament of Zimbabwe up to 15 November 2023 when that judgment was passed.
Suffice to mention that the reasoning by the Labour Court is that the repeal of the old section 56 of the Labour Act which created voluntary employment councils legally means that a designated agent who was employed by a voluntary employment council automatically ceased to have jurisdiction over labour disputes by operation of the law, with effect from 14 July 2023 when that old law was repealed.
There was no automatic legal transition and acquisition of jurisdiction by a designated agent from being employed by a voluntary employment council to being employed by the new statutory employment council created by the new section 56 of the Labour Act ushered by Labour Amendment Act No. 11 of 2023.
The new statutory employment council created by the new section 56 of the Labour Act is legally different from the old voluntary employment council which was abrogated or outlawed by the law on 14 July 2023.
Any labour determination, decision or dispute settlement by a designated agent employed by the former voluntary employment council without a new contract of employment under the new statutory employment council from 14 July 2023 to the present date until the statutory instrument is legally operationalised, is under legal spotlight and a heavy cloud as it may be up in smoke if contested, challenged or impugned by any aggrieved party as a legal nullity or null and void ab initio.
A designated agent requires a new contract of employment from a statutory employment council as the employer and new authority, mandate or credentials from the government of Zimbabwe’s Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare to exercise jurisdiction over any labour dispute under the new statutory employment council created by section 56 of the Labour Act.
Government of Zimbabwe is highly commended and greatly appreciated for introducing the new statutory employment council via the new section 56 of the Labour Act passed in terms of Labour Amendment Act No. 11 of 2023, to protect some vulnerable workers from exploitation, slave conditions of work and enhancing the employees’ legal right to collective bargaining for the improvement of minimum of conditions of employment in sync with labour rights jealously guarded in terms of section 65 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe for the promotion of fair labour practices and equitable standards of employment.
Government of Zimbabwe is humbly and respectfully encouraged to urgently operationalise the legal and administrative functions framework of the new statutory employment council created by the new re-enacted section 56 of the Labour Act to avoid stagnation of labour dispute settlement or resolution by a designated agent, existential threat of extinction of the job of a designated agent and piling of a backlog of labour disputes previously done by designated agents employed by various employment councils, before labour officers across the country.
Public interest legal opinion by Commercial and Labour Lawyer Caleb Mucheche dated 17 November 2023. Disclaimer: This legal opinion is not a substitute for seeking legal advice from a recognised legal professional.
Labour Law Interventions to HIV and AIDs at The Workplace in Zimbabwe
Unpacking Some Zimbabwean Medico-Labour Law Contained in The Labour Relations (HIV and AIDs) Regulations, 1998
By Caleb Mucheche
INTRODUCTION
Zimbabwean labour law responded to the HIV and AIDS scourge by the enactment of legislation that specifically deals with this particular area at the workplace by the legislature. The aforesaid legislation is in the form of a statutory instrument known as Labour Relations (HIV and AIDS) Regulations, 1998[1] (“hereinafter referred to as the HIV and AIDS Regulations”). The HIV and AIDS regulations are designed to provide a legal guideline to both an employer and an employee concerning the subject matter contained therein. Suffice to mention that the concerned regulations are divided and arranged into eleven parts which will be addressed in this paper for the legal benefit of the entire spectrum of the Zimbabwean society, be it employer or employee or some other stakeholder or interested party who may be either infected or affected by HIV and AIDS in one way or the other.
Title of the HIV and AIDS Regulations
The title appears in part one of the regulations. This is the legal title which provides a name for the regulations. It is worded as follows:
“ These regulations may be cited as the Labour Relations (HIV and AIDS) Regulatiobns,1998[1].”
The title of a legislation is inserted for the convenience of the reader or user. These regulations have an overriding and tailor made superseding legal status in any employment relationship by virtue of the fact that they are made in terms of section 17 of the Labour Act which gives the relevant Minister of Labour broad legal powers to make far reaching regulations that create minimum conditions of employment in Zimbabwe[2]. The fact that the HIV and AIDS Regulations are made in terms of section 17 of the Labour Act is res ipsa loquitor from an ex facie reading of the clear and bold print within such regulations worded as follows:
“ IT is hereby notified that the Minister of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare, in terms of section 17 of the Labour Relations Act [Chapter 28:01], has made the following regulations-‘’
[1] See section 1 of SI 202/1998
[2] Section 17(1) & (2) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] provides that, (1) Subject to this Act, the Minister, after consultation with the appropriate advisory council, if any, appointed in terms of section nineteen, may make regulations for the development, improvement, protection, regulation and control of employment and conditions of employment and (2) Where the Minister has made regulations in terms of subsection (1), every contract, agreement of any kind whatsoever, determination or regulation made in terms of any enactment which related to the employment of any employee to whom such regulations relate and which provides terms and conditions less favourable to the employee than those specified in the regulations, shall be construed with such modifications, qualifications, adaptations and exceptions as may be necessary to bring it in conformity with such regulations.
LEGAL INTERPRETATION OF THE HIV AND AIDS REGULATIONS
The regulations contain an interpretation of some words, terms and phrases used therein. The meaning ascribed to the words, terms and phrases in the regulations is a legally binding meaning which must be used in construing or interpreting the HIV and AIDS Regulations. Testing of HIV and AIDS can be done either directly or indirectly The interpretation part of the regulations is carefully and elaborately worded as follows:
“ In these regulations-
“AIDS” means acquired immune-deficiency syndrome and includes the AIDS-related complex;
“HIV” means human-immuno-deficiency virus;
“testing” in relation to HIV includes-
- any direct analysis of the blood or other body fluid of a person to determine the presence of HIV or antibodies to HIV; or
- any indirect method, other than testing of blood or other body fluid, through which an inference is made as to the presence of HIV;
“related communicable disease” means any communicable disease whose transmission may be linked with HIV due to its transmission through body fluids or whose risk of clinical disease may be increased due to the presence of HIV;
“medical practitioner” means a person registered as a medical practitioner in terms of the Medical, Dental and Allied Professions Act [Chapter 27:08].
Legally Compulsory Education of Employees On HIV and AIDs by an Employer
Part three of the HIV and AIDS regulations contain some significant legal provisions for the dissemination of information by an employer to his/her/employees regarding HIV and AIDS. The sharing of sound, relevant and important information on HIV and AIDS at the workplace through the active participation of an employer may help prevent and cure HIV and AIDS as well as combat stigmatisation of those infected by HIV and AIDS at the workplace. There is a need for a government-controlled or supervised monitoring and evaluation of practical enforcement of compliance by every employer in Zimbabwe, be it in the private or public sector (even though the HIV and AIDS Regulations under legal scrutiny do not specifically apply to the public[1] sector employees), with this noble legal provision for the education of employees on HIV and AIDS as part of the wider efforts to fight the challenge of this disease in the country so that the nation’s workforce is protected from destruction. The law makes it compulsory or mandatory for every Zimbabwean employer to educate every person employed by that particular employer during normal working hours regarding HIV and AIDS in terms of section 3 of the Labour Relations ( HIV and AIDS) Regulations which provides as follows;
“ Every employer shall cause to be provided for the benefit of every person employed by him, and at such place and time during normal working hours as he may appoint, education and information relating to-
- the promotion of safe sex and risk-reducing measures in relation to sexually transmitted diseases; and
- the acquiring and transmission of HIV; and
- the prevention of the spread of HIV and AIDS; and
- counselling facilities for HIV and AIDS patients. (emphasis added by underlining)
It is noteworthy that the HIV and AIDS Regulations jealously guard against the use of unqualified or bogus persons by an employer in the education of employees on HIV and AIDS at the workplace. The law clearly stipulates that the credentials of a person whom the employer must use or hire to furnish employees with education on HIV and AIDS must be that the person must possess sound knowledge or expertise in matters relating to HIV and AIDS meaning that such a person to offer that education must not be a novice or self-proclaimed expert but a genuine expert with empirical evidence to prove such sound knowledge and expertise which may be in the form of possession of relevant qualifications in the medical field earned from a recognised college or learning institution. The law does not countenance fake experts for providing employees with education on HIV and AIDS at the behest of the employer meaning that it is not every proverbial “Tom”, “Jack” and “Hary” who must purport to provide employees with education on HIV and AIDS at the workplace. Some unscrupulous persons have been on the loose leash or prowl trying to cash in and wrongfully, unlawfully and improperly milking money or resources from unsuspecting members of the public under the guise of providing education and information on HIV and AIDS but their education and information remain fake and toxic. It is submitted that if an employer uses an unqualified person without sound knowledge and expertise in HIV and AIDS purporting to provide his/her/its employees with education on HIV and AIDS, that employer, apart from other criminal legal sanctions, the concerned employer may be found liable for huge sums of money and damages under the law of delict for wrongful, unlawful and harmful conduct against the affected employees. Also, an employer who hires an unqualified person to pretend to “offer” education to his/her/its employees about HIV and AIDS runs the risk of damaging the professional reputation of such an employer. The law, therefore, contains very stringent legal provisions to guard against the sharing of education on HIV and AIDS at the workplace by employers through using unqualified persons by setting the legal bar for persons who are eligible to offer such education as follows
:
“ Education and information shall be provided in terms of subsection (1) by persons who have proven sound knowledge and expertise in matters relating to HIV and AIDS, who are able to communicate information with accuracy and consistency[2].” (emphasis added by underlining).
Ever since the HIV and AIDS scourge reared its ugly head in Zimbabwean society, several co-artists have masqueraded as providing information, education, knowledge or cure about HIV and AIDS only for them to turn into merchants of darkness, folly and purveyors of falsehoods but in some cases after fleecing their innocent and pliable victims of fortunes in money and resources. One such case in mind is the sad story of the famous late former Zimbabwean heavyweight boxer by the name Proud Chinembiri (also known as Kilimanjaro for his remarkable boxing prowess) who in the late 1990s was allegedly reported in the local press known as Parade magazine and later by the Bulawayo based Chronicle[3] newspaper, to have been cheated of his lots of money by someone who alleged that he was able to cure HIV and AIDS.
[1] The reason for the concerned HIV and AIDS Regulations not applying to public sector employees or civil servants is that they were enacted in terms of section 17 of the Labour Act and the same Labour Act does not apply to public sector employees by virtue of section 3(1) and (2) thereof which says, (1) This Act shall apply to all employers and employees except those whose conditions of employment are otherwise provided for in the Constitution and (2) For the avoidance of doubt, the conditions of employment of members of the Public Service shall be governed by the Public Service Act [Chapter 16:04].
[2] See section 3 (2) of S.I 202/1998.
[3] See the Chronicle article of 15 May 2011 which reported, “founding fathers of Zimbabwe will almost always trace the inspiration of their heroic efforts to one giant, Benjamin Burombo. But there was to be another Benjamin Burombo in post-independent Zimbabwe who made headlines for different reasons altogether. At the height of the HIV and AIDS pandemic, when anti-retroviral drugs were not freely available and the virus was taking its toll on the nation, the self-styled “Doctor” Benjamin Burombo rose to fame with claims that he could cure diseases associated with the virus. He drew many to him and in the process enriched himself. But many doubted that he was genuine and wondered how long he would last. The then Minister of Health and Child Welfare, Dr Timothy Stamps dismissed Burombo’s claim that he could cure Aids-related illnesses. But Burombo was adamant. Among his patients was the late Zimbabwean heavyweight boxing champion Proud “Kilimanjaro” Chinembiri. Burombo’s stakes rose quite high when it was reported that he was “treating” the famed boxing champion. Unfortunately, Kilimanjaro died. It was not long before Burombo’s world collapsed and he soon disappeared from the limelight. Two decades later, the former vibrant and talkative herbalist is a shadow of his former self. The man, who claimed to possess magical healing powers and herbs, is now broken. His dream of finding a cure for Aids had died. The BMWs and Mercedes Benzs have also disappeared and have been replaced by a modest Renault 12. His Kuwadzana house which used to play host to hundreds of Zimbabweans and foreigners seeking help, now tells a different and sad tale. Some sheep could be heard bleating in his backyard when The Herald visited him on Wednesday. Now 51 years old, the man who used to claim that his wonder herbs were from deed-down Kariba Dam, has lost the bling. At his gate there is an inscription; “Trespassers will be prosecuted” Readmore…
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY ON THE CONTEMPORARY LABOUR LAW DEVELOPMENTS UNDER THE ZIMBABWE LABOUR AMENDMENT BILL,2021 (H.B.14, 2021).
By Labour & Commercial Lawyer Caleb Mucheche
Introduction
Labour law in Zimbabwe has evolved and expanded from pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial independent Zimbabwe to present day. The history of labour law development in Zimbabwe will be remiss or incomplete without giving due recognition to the supreme sacrifices made by early torchbearers for labour justice in Zimbabwe like the late independence forebears, nationalists cum trade unionist labour leaders like Benjamin Burombo, Masotsha Ndlovu, Joshua Nkomo, Herbert Chitepo, Leopold Takawira, Edison Sithole, Samuel Parirenyatwa, George Silundika and Jason Moyo to name but a few not in any hierarchy, order or superiority. One of the chief purposes of labour law is regulation of economic redistribution of wealth in society between the haves and have nots by addressing bread and butter issues of the stomach. The fight for the independence of Zimbabwe cannot be divorced from the fight for economic emancipation of the majority or masses, for without economic independence to access and enjoy the means of production in society, there is no meaningful independence for the majority people. This legal analysis and commentary of the Labour Amendment Bill, 2021 traces the historical evolution and development of labour law in Zimbabwe before and after independence and the practical implications of such amendments to the dynamic employment relationship.
Justification for regulation of labour law to counterbalance inherent unequal bargaining power between an employer and employee
The lopsided relationship of economic dependence by an employee on an employer coupled with higher economic bargain power of the employer makes a mockery and laughingstock any notion that an employer and employee are equal in such a relationship of employment as was proven by the common law power of arbitrary termination of employment that ensued pursuant to the Zuva Supreme Court judgment of 17 July 2015. The lack of equality in an employment relationship characterised by economic disparity between an employer and employee is an open secret or matter of public knowledge especially in a developing nation like Zimbabwe. Inequality is treating unequal persons equally and equal persons unequally. An employer who owns and controls the means of production has more weight and say in an employment relationship than an employee who is economically dependent on the employer. Labour law seeks to counterbalance the existing inherent inequality in the employment relationship and competing interests of employer and employee via statutory regulation. Consequently, this paper seeks to unearth, unravel and unpack the proposed law by availing an extensive commentary and intensive legal analysis of the Labour Amendment Bill, 2021.
International Law influence on Zimbabwean labour law under International Labour Organisation (ILO) Conventions and Recommendations
More than five amendments have been made to try and align Zimbabwean Labour Law with international best practice and the coming in of new trends. This is in order to give influence of the International obligations of the nation as a member state of the International Labour Organisation (ILO). This promotes the creation of a good and economical labour market that entices good investment opportunities and motivates investments in accordance to international developments such as ILO Conventions and Recommendations and Best Practices. In light of the above, one would appreciate that the development of Labour Law in Zimbabwe is not stagnant. This commentary is based on the review of the developments that the Labour amendment Bill of 2021 seeks to make on the existing provisions of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] and the effectiveness or efficacy of such developments read more..
Courts’ Exclusive Judicial Turf Or Master Of The High Court’s Domain: Determination Of The Status Of A Person As A Surviving Spouse Or Otherwise For Purpose Of Entitlement To Intestate Inheritance In An Unregistered Customary Law Union In Zimbabwe.
Introduction
The determination of the status of a person as a surviving spouse in an unregistered customary law union in Zimbabwe is a very important decision which operates as a precursor or condition precedent to any legal claim for intestate inheritance from the applicable deceased estate by the concerned person. This issue has always been lying unresolved but it was recently brought to the fore by a related newspaper story that was reported in the Herald edition of 17 April 20172 entitled, “ no lobola, no inheritance…ruling brings closure to surviving spouse debate.” The classification of a person as a surviving spouse of a deceased person is one of the gateway to acquiring inheritance from the deceased person’s estate, especially where the deceased died without leaving behind a valid will (intestate). In some cases, the question of whether or not one is a surviving spouse or even a beneficiary of a given deceased is a highly contested terrain involving complex material disputes of fact which cannot be resolved amicably between the deceased’s family members and other interested parties due to an interplay of a myriad of factors that includes but not limited to greedy, polarisation and settling of personal scores, thereby warranting the intervention a neutral third party to adjudicate . The crux of this paper is to provide an answer to the pricking question of who between the Courts and the Master of the High Court is reposed with the jurisdiction to determine the status of a person as a surviving spouse or otherwise in an unregistered customary law union in Zimbabwe.
Legal Confines Or Boundaries Of The Master’s Jurisdiction In A Customary Law Estate Dispute Among Beneficiaries Regarding Whether Or Not Customary Law Applied To The Deceased Person.
The Master of the High Court’s (hereinafter referred to as ‘’the Master”) jurisdiction in a customary law estate dispute among beneficiaries pursuant to section 68G of the Act is clearly marked and circumscribed within the four corners of the applicable legislation and not open ended. Jurisdiction refers to the legal capacity and power to determine a matter. In terms of the law, the Master’s jurisdiction is only restricted to deciding a dispute among beneficiaries as to whether or not customary law applied to the deceased person , nothing more nothing less. The peremptory provisions of the Administration of Estates Act7(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) are very
instructive in this regard as follows:
“ Where there is a dispute among the beneficiaries of an estate as to whether or not customary
law applied to the deceased person for purposes of this Part, the question shall be referred to the
Master, who shall determine it in the speediest and least expensive manner consistent with real
and substantial justice.” (emphasis added by underlining).
Thus, the statutory jurisdiction of the Master specifically apply to and is limited to a determination of a dispute among the beneficiaries of an estate as to whether or not customary law applied to the deceased person based on the legal guidelines embedded in the Act as follows:
“ Section 3 of the Customary Law and Local Courts Act ( Chapter 7:05) shall apply in determining
the question whether or not customary law applied to a deceased person for the purpose of this
Part
Provided that it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is shown, that-
(a) customary law applied to a person, who at the time of his death, was married in accordance with customary law; and
(b) the general law of Zimbabwe9 applied to the person who, at the time of his death, was married in accordance with the Marriage Act (Chapter 5:11) or the law of foreign country, even he was also married to the same person under customary law.”
The legal role of the Master of the High Court of Zimbabwe as the upper guardian
of the minor child(ren) in Zimbabwe in comparison with other jurisdictions
By Caleb Mucheche LLM Commercial Law (South Africa), LLM Labour Law
(Zambia), LLB Hons (UZ): Head Partner at Caleb Mucheche and Partners Law
Chambers, Legal Practitioners: advocatemucheche@gmail.com
Introduction
Guardianship and Custody are important legal concepts when dealing with the affairs of minor children. Guardianship and Custody are important concepts in law with regards to minor children. These concepts are closely intertwined, and as such, often confused by many. Custody refers to the physical control and primary responsibility of well-being and daily care that a person has over a minor child, whilst Guardianship encompasses the full rights over the affairs of a minor including dealing with health, education needs, financial security or any welfare needs. The primary focus of this paper is on guardianship, and particularly the roles of the Master of the High Court as the upper guardian of the minor child in Zimbabwe amid the existing inheritance and estate laws in Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwean Legal Framework
A clarity on who is a minor is, crucial in this paper to lay a good foundation on who the courts of law through the office of the Master of the High Court, protects. A minor in terms of our law any person under the age of 18. The Constitution of Zimbabwe in terms of section 81 (2) provides that, “A child’s best interests are paramount in every matter concerning the child”. The guiding principle in all matters involving a child, is the promotion of the child’s best interest at all times. In Zimbabwe, the Guardianship of Minors Act [Chapter 5:08] regulates the law regarding minors, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.
Guardianship in its widest sense connotes custody and embraces the care and control of the minor’s person as well as the administration of his property and business affairs. There are instances where custody and guardianship are separated; the custodian parent has the care and control of the minor’s person, while the guardian parent administers his/her property and business affairs (guardianship) in the narrower sense.
Further, the concept of guardianship and sole guardianship are two different issues. That is why they are governed by different sections under the Guardianship of Minors Act [Chapter 5:08]. Guardianship per se is the paramount right exercised by the father of a child born inside wedlock in terms of common law and this is referred to as guardianship simpliciter. This right is subject to section 3 of the Act and the power of the court as the upper guardian of children.
In terms of section 3 of the Guardianship of Minors Act [Chapter 5:08], a father whose guardianship simpliciter has not been challenged can exercise his rights in consultation with the mother of the child. The consultation duty imposed on the father by the law equally applies to parties who both married and divorced. Situations may arise where parents may disagree on what is best for the child, the Act is clear and it provides as follows,
not all parents are equipped to know, how to act in the best interests of their minor children. Section 19 of the Constitution prescribes that in all matters involving minor children their best interests are paramount. Whatever, is done if it affects children must always be done to ensure that the children are protected and that they enjoy the rights accorded them as children in the Constitution.
In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. In all actions concerning the child undertaken by any person or authority the best interests of the child shall be the primary consideration. A child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child. In all actions concerning the care, protection and well-being of a child the standard that the best interest of the child is of paramount importance, must be applied. Courts play the role of a guardian angel in promoting and protecting the interests of children read more…