Labour Rights in Zimbabwe: Legal protections and jurisdictional limits
ASHLEY TANYANYIWA AND FUNGAI CHIMWAMUROMBE
Labour rights form the bedrock of fair employment practices, ensuring that workers are treated with dignity and protected from arbitrary or exploitative actions.
In Zimbabwe, a growing body of case law reveals evolving tensions between employer discretion, employee rights, and the role of judicial and quasi-judicial bodies. Three notable cases—Chanakira v Zimbabwe Post, Nhari v Mugabe & Gushungo Dairy Holdings, and The Corporation v Moyana—highlight critical legal principles surrounding unfair dismissal, legal representation, and jurisdiction.
What Are Labour Rights and Who Are They For?
Labour rights are legal protections afforded to individuals in the workplace, ensuring fair treatment, safe working conditions, equitable compensation, and the freedom to organize and be heard.
These rights stem from national constitutions, labour legislation, and international conventions. In Zimbabwe, the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] and the Constitution of Zimbabwe guarantee key rights such as:
- The right to fair dismissal
- Protection against forced labour
- Legal representation in disciplinary proceedings.
These rights are intended for all employees, regardless of position or sector, and are designed to balance the inherent power disparities between employers and employees.
There are some cases that also guarantee labour rights such as Chanakira vs Zimbabwe Post (Pvt) Ltd. (HC 364 of 2016; HH 110 of 2016) [2016] ZWHHC 110 (4 February 2016) and SC00-89 – Art Corporation LTD vs Moyana (1989)
In Chanakira v Zimbabwe Post, the applicant was denied legal representation during a disciplinary hearing, as the employer cited internal codes limiting representation to trade unionists or workers’ committee members. The High Court ruled this was unconstitutional, stating that Section 69(4) of the Constitution guarantees the right to legal representation in any forum, including internal hearings. The key principle here is that Constitutional rights supersede employment codes and denying an employee legal representation is a violation of fundamental rights and renders proceedings void.
In the case of Art Corporation LTD vs Moyana, the Supreme Court examined the legality of an employee’s dismissal and the remedies available. The Court found the employer had acted unlawfully by dismissing Mr. Moyana without proper procedural authority. However, it rejected the Tribunal’s order of reinstatement, noting that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to overturn the Labour Board’s decision where no appeal had been filed on that point. The Court also set aside a claim for acting allowances, ruling that such claims must be supported by either contractual terms or statutory authority not assumptions or equitable arguments. The key principle here is that Reinstatement is a discretionary remedy—not automatic upon wrongful dismissal. Labour bodies must operate within their statutory powers.
Conclusion
These cases reinforce the importance of procedural fairness, constitutional compliance, and jurisdictional discipline in Zimbabwe’s labour framework. They reflect a legal environment that strongly protects employees, so long as the correct legal channels and remedies are pursued.
For employees, the message is clear: assert your rights through the proper forums, and ensure that your claims are anchored in law. For employers, the obligation is equally serious: follow legal procedures meticulously, or risk having your actions declared unlawful and unenforceable.
As labour law continues to evolve in Zimbabwe, these judgments serve as a reminder that labour rights are not abstract ideals but they are enforceable legal entitlements, rooted in both statutory and constitutional authority.
Ashely Tanyanyiwa a legal intern at Zenas legal Practice and can be contacted on WhatsApp +263 78 351 4826
Fungai Chimwamurombe is a registered legal practitioner and Senior Partner at Chimwamurombe Legal Practice and can be contacted through email fungai@zenaslegalpractice.com.
