Supreme Court: Fired Workers Can Go Straight to Labour Court
Quick answer: Yes. In Delta Beverages v Mufaro Muchetu (SC 52/26), Zimbabwe's Supreme Court ruled that a worker or employer unhappy with a disciplinary outcome under a registered employment code can appeal directly to the Labour Court under section 92D of the Labour Act. Going to a labour officer under section 101(5) is an optional conciliation route, not a compulsory first step.
Key Takeaways
The Supreme Court dismissed Delta Beverages' appeal with costs, confirming that dismissed workers may go directly to the Labour Court.
Sections 92D and 101(5) of the Labour Act are complementary: parties can choose either route.
A labour officer can only conciliate or, if both sides agree, arbitrate; it cannot overturn a completed disciplinary decision on the merits.
The 2023 Labour Amendment Act's section 101(5) did not repeal section 92D.
Time limits differ: the labour officer route must be used within 30 days, while a section 92D appeal follows the Labour Court's own deadline.
Workers in Zimbabwe who lose their jobs after a disciplinary hearing under a registered employment code do not have to queue at a labour officer's desk before taking their case to the Labour Court. That is the effect of a Supreme Court judgment in Delta Beverages (Private) Limited v Mufaro Muchetu (SC 52/26), which dismissed the beverage company's appeal with costs.
The judgment, handed down on 28 August 2026 according to a legal analysis published by Afriwise, was reported this week by NewZimbabwe.com, which described it as opening a direct route to the Labour Court for dismissed employees. It settles a procedural question that had arisen since amendments to the Labour Act in 2023.
What happened in the Delta Beverages case?
Mufaro Muchetu worked as a machine operator in the Packaging Department at Delta Beverages' Southerton plant in Harare. According to the judgment as reported by NewZimbabwe.com, an alcohol test taken when his shift ended on 8 November 2024 showed a high level of alcohol in his blood. The company said this created a safety risk because he had been operating machinery.
Delta charged him with an alcohol and drug offence under its 2003 code of conduct; a disciplinary hearing convicted him and he was dismissed. At a Works Council appeal hearing on 18 February 2025, he admitted drinking at work but asked for a lighter penalty, citing personal difficulties. The Works Council turned him down the following day.
Muchetu then went directly to the Labour Court, arguing that his mitigating circumstances had not been properly weighed and that a final warning would have been a fairer sanction than dismissal.
The company's objection
Delta Beverages raised a preliminary point: it argued the Labour Court had no jurisdiction because Muchetu had skipped the labour officer. In its view, the Labour Amendment Act of 2023 created a mandatory step under section 101(5), requiring an aggrieved party to approach a labour officer within 30 days first. The Labour Court disagreed and said Muchetu could pick either route, which prompted the company's appeal to the Supreme Court.
What did the Supreme Court decide?
Justice Rita Makarau, sitting with Justices of Appeal Antonia Guvava, Samuel Kudya and Hapias Zhou, had to answer two questions: whether section 101(5) forces parties to see a labour officer before appealing, and whether that newer section had quietly replaced section 92D. The court rejected both arguments.
Section 92D gives employers and employees a direct right to appeal to the Labour Court against decisions made under a registered employment code.
Section 101(5) allows a party to approach a labour officer within 30 days of the disciplinary process ending, but the officer's role is to attempt conciliation or use other powers under section 93.
The key distinction, as Afriwise's analysis explains, is that the Labour Court hears an appeal on the merits, while a labour officer facilitates settlement and, if needed, the statutory process that may lead to arbitration. A labour officer is not an appeal tribunal and cannot re-decide a disciplinary case already determined under a registered code.
Because the labour officer has no power to rule on the merits, the court held that the rule requiring parties to exhaust domestic remedies did not apply. In the court's words, quoted by NewZimbabwe.com, "Where the purported remedy lacks jurisdiction to determine the merits of the dispute, the doctrine finds no application."
The judges also found no conflict between the two sections, so there was no implied repeal of section 92D. They noted that the labour officer route was meant to be a cheaper, more accessible way of resolving disputes outside the formal courts, which may especially help employees who cannot afford a Labour Court appeal.
Why does this ruling matter now?
Choosing the wrong path, or missing a deadline, can cost someone their case. The Supreme Court has now made clear that the two routes sit side by side and that the choice belongs to the aggrieved party.
For employers, Afriwise notes that disciplinary records can now go straight to appellate scrutiny without passing through conciliation first. That makes the quality of internal hearings more important: charge sheets, evidence, procedural fairness, reasons for the conviction and the justification for the penalty should all be properly documented.
What this means for you
If you are an employee who has been dismissed after a hearing under a registered code of conduct, you have two options:
Appeal directly to the Labour Court under section 92D – this may suit disputes about whether the finding was correct, how the code was interpreted or whether dismissal was too harsh. This route follows the Labour Court's own time limit.
Approach a labour officer under section 101(5) – this is a conciliation route that can be cheaper and less confrontational, useful where both sides are open to settlement. It must be used within 30 days after the disciplinary process ends.
Whichever route you choose, act quickly and keep copies of your charge sheet, hearing records and outcome letters. If you are an employer or HR manager, review how your disciplinary hearings are run and recorded, since a weak process can now be tested directly before the Labour Court.
This article is general information, not legal advice. Workers and employers facing a specific dispute should consult a labour lawyer, their trade union or an employers' organisation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do I have to see a labour officer before going to the Labour Court?
No. Under the Delta Beverages v Muchetu ruling, a party unhappy with a decision under a registered employment code may appeal directly to the Labour Court under section 92D. The labour officer route is optional.
What can a labour officer do under section 101(5)?
A labour officer can try to conciliate the dispute or use other powers under section 93, and can arbitrate only if the parties agree. The officer cannot overturn a completed disciplinary decision on the merits.
What is the deadline for approaching a labour officer?
Section 101(5) allows a party to approach a labour officer within 30 days after the disciplinary proceedings are completed. A section 92D appeal follows the Labour Court's own time limit.
Did the 2023 Labour Amendment Act remove the direct appeal?
No. The Supreme Court held that section 101(5), added in 2023, did not impliedly repeal section 92D, because the two provisions serve different purposes.
Who decided the case?
Justice Rita Makarau, sitting with Justices of Appeal Antonia Guvava, Samuel Kudya and Hapias Zhou. Delta Beverages' appeal was dismissed with costs.
Sources
This article was compiled by Jobsiz from the sources listed above, with AI-assisted writing and automated fact-checking. Published 3 October 2026. We update stories when new verified information becomes available.