THE Minister of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare, Edgar Moyo is facing a High Court challenge for his ministry’s alleged failure to implement a critical labour reform for nearly a decade, a delay lawyers say has condemned thousands of Zimbabwean workers to permanent temporary contracts.
In court papers filed on Monday, labour lawyer Caleb Mucheche accuses the minister of violating the Labour Act by not publishing regulations mandated by the 2015 amendments.
Specifically, section 12(3a)(b) requires the government to set a legal cap on the number of times employers can renew fixed-term contracts.
The provision was introduced after the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling that allowed companies to dismiss employees on three months’ notice, sparking mass retrenchments.
Parliament responded with amendments designed to curb “casualisation of labour” and strengthen job security.
But 10 years later, the regulations remain unwritten, leaving teachers, nurses, factory workers and bank tellers trapped in an endless cycle of short-term contracts.
Mucheche is seeking a declaratory order compelling the minister to act, arguing the inaction violates workers’ constitutional rights to fair labour standards and equal protection before the law.
“It is now 10 years long since 2015 ever since section 12 (3a) of the Labour Act as amended, created a legal obligation on the part of the respondent to prescribe or peg the number of times a fixed term/casual/seasonal contract for a worker or employee can be renewed before it changes into a contract without limit of time with better legal rights and protection for a worker or employee not covered by any national employment council to afford such a worker or employee better legal rights and minimum conditions of employment, for protection from abuse and violation of labour rights by some unscrupulous employers,” he submitted.
- $10m allocated for hospital rehabilitation
- $10m allocated for hospital rehabilitation
- Teachers to embark on a go-slow
- Govt scraps bonuses for chefs
Keep Reading
“This yawning loophole legal gap (lacuna) caused by the delay by the respondent to comply with section 12(3a)(b) of the Labour Act since 2015 leaves those workers or employees not covered by any national employment council, precariously legally naked without job security and susceptible to wanton, brazen, blatant and flagrant violation of their constitutional labour legal rights by some arbitrary, capricious, nefarious, barbaric, spineless, heartless and rapacious employers.
“This also leaves such vulnerable employees or workers marooned on an island of social injustice, unfair and unjust discrimination and lack of equal benefit and protection of the law as protected in terms of section 56 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe,” Mucheche further states in his affidavit.
He is asking the High Court to declare that the minister has acted unlawfully and to compel the immediate gazetting of the regulations.
The case shines a harsh light on what many describe as a betrayal of workers, who were promised security after the 2015 reforms.
The Supreme Court judgment that year allowed companies to dismiss staff on three months’ notice, unleashing mass layoffs across Zimbabwe.
Parliament responded by amending the Labour Act, promising new rules that would curb casualisation and stop employers from exploiting short term contracts.
Labour unions, which have long decried contract labour as “modern slavery”, say the omission has become a symbol of betrayal by a government that promised protections in 2015 but never delivered.
The case comes as Zimbabwe’s economy reels from inflation, shrinking formal employment and widespread job losses.
Analysts say its impact could extend far beyond labour relations: a ruling in Mucheche’s favour would bind the minister and set a powerful precedent, confirming that citizens can drag government to court for failing to implement laws passed by Parliament.
Government officials have previously cited “ongoing consultations” with employers and unions as the reason for the delay, but critics dismiss this as a stalling tactic.
The stakes are high. For workers, a win would force employers to regularise staff after a set contract period, offering long-awaited job security.
For employers, it could raise labour costs.
And for the State, it would test the boundaries of executive accountability and risk further criticism of its governance and human rights record.
