Makarudze & Anor v Bungu & Ors (HC 4406 of 2011) [2015] ZWHHC 8 (6 January 2015)

Makarudze & Anor v Bungu & Ors (HC 4406 of 2011) [2015] ZWHHC 8 (6 January 2015)

Plaintiffs had locus standi as aggrieved members with a direct and substantial interest. The High Court had jurisdiction since domestic remedies were ineffective or undermined. The first defendant, having been dismissed from Council employment, lost eligibility for Union membership and office, as membership is restricted to employees. An appeal to the Supreme Court does not automatically suspend the Labour Court’s decision, as the Labour Court is not a superior court of inherent jurisdiction.

Citation
[2015] ZWHHC 8
Parties
Plaintiff: John Makarudze; Plaintiff: Maxwell Munondo; Defendant: Cosmos Bungu; Defendant: The Executive Committee, Harare Municipal Workers’ Union; Defendant: The Harare Municipal Workers’ Union
Court
Harare High Court
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Judgment Date
6 January 2015
Case Number
HC 4406 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Special Case (order 29) / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiffs
Legal Topics
Trade Union Membership, Locus Standi, Jurisdiction, Suspension of Judgment Pending Appeal, Interpretation of Union Constitutions
Source Language
English
Labour Law Civil Procedure Trade Union Membership Locus Standi Jurisdiction Suspension of Judgment Pending Appeal Interpretation of Union Constitutions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 37 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Makarudze

Plaintiff

Maxwell Munondo

Plaintiff

Cosmos Bungu

Defendant

The Executive Committee, Harare Municipal Workers’ Union

Defendant

The Harare Municipal Workers’ Union

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Special Case (order 29) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiffs’ action
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs had locus standi to institute the proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the first defendant was still eligible to be a member of the Union after his dismissal from employment

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiffs had locus standi as aggrieved members with a direct and substantial interest. The High Court had jurisdiction since domestic remedies were ineffective or undermined. The first defendant, having been dismissed from Council employment, lost eligibility for Union membership and office, as membership is restricted to employees. An appeal to the Supreme Court does not automatically suspend the Labour Court’s decision, as the Labour Court is not a superior court of inherent jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiffs

Orders

  • This court had jurisdiction to determine the plaintiffs’ action.
  • The plaintiffs had locus standi to institute these proceedings.