PHIRI v ZIMBABWE MEDIA COMMISSION (17 of 2026) [2026] ZWLC 17 (26 January 2026)

**IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE JUDGMENT NO LC/H/17/26** **HARARE 20 JANUARY 2026 and** **26 JANUARY 2026 CASE NO LC/H/1067/25** **GODWIN PHIRI APPLICANT** **ZIMBABWE MEDIA COMMISSION RESPONDENT** Before the Honourable G. Musariri Judge: For Applicant - TE Mboko,Attorney For Respondent - G. Mupanga, Attorney **MUSARIRI, J:** Applicant applied to this Court for the review of his dismissal from employment by Respondent. The Application was made in terms of section 89 of the _Labour_ _Act_ Chapter 28:01. Respondent opposed the application. At the onset of oral argument appellant raised a point _in_ _limine_ to the effect that there is no valid opposition to his application. The point is expatiated in applicant’s heads of argument thus, “In Limine 27\. The matter must be deemed to be unopposed as there is no valid response filed to oppose the relief being sought herein. 28\. Cephas Vuta, who is a subordinate of the Applicant has no authority to represent the Respondent. It is now settled law that for one to represent an entity there must be a valid board resolution to that effect. 29\. A simple reading of the Affidavit and annextures there would show that, Cephas Vuta was a person who had personal problems with the Applicant and has now decided to act out of his own volition to oppose this application…’ Respondent’s heads of argument countered as follows, “1. It is respectfully submitted that the point in limine is without merit and should be dismissed. The following principles have been expounded by the courts: 1. The production of a company resolution as proof that the deponent has authority is not necessary in every case as each case must be considered on its merits. All the Court is required to do is satisfy itself that enough evidence has been placed before it to show that it is indeed the applicant which is litigating and not an unauthorised person. 2. Where it is stated in an affidavit that the deponent has authority, it can only be disbelieved where there exists evidence to the contrary. It is not enough for one to just challenge the existence of authority without more as the respondent has done. 3. Furthermore, a deponent is qualified to swear to an affidavit as long as he or she had knowledge of the facts and can swear to these facts. It is the institution of proceedings and the prosecution thereof which must be authorised…” _**ANALYSIS**_ The law governing representation of corporates or public entities in courts of law was spelt out in the case of, _Dube_ v _PSMAS_ 2019(3)ZLR 589(S) Per Garwe JCC at 598 E “…A person who represents a legal entity, when challenged, must show that he is duly authorised to represent the entity. His mere claim that by virtue of the position he holds in such an entity he is duly authorised to represent the entity is not sufficient. He must produce a resolution of the board of that entity which confirms that the board is indeed aware of the proceedings and that it has given such person the authority to act in the stead of the entity. I stress that the need to produce such proof is necessary only in those cases where the authority of the deponent is put in issue. This represents the current state of the law in this country.” This position was restated in the case of, _Mpofu_ v _Zimdef_ SC 33/24 Per Mwayera JA in the penultimate paragraph, “The preliminary point that the deponent to the founding papers, that is the CEO, did not have the relevant authority as there was no resolution by the Board, ought to have been sustained. In the absence of a Board resolution the actions of the CEO are a nullity. This conclusion is dispositive of the appeal.” By parity of reasoning, the Legal Manager _in_ _casu_ did not have the authority to oppose the application as he did not have a board resolution authorising him to do so. His actions amount to a nullity and as such the notice of opposition stands to be struck off. The argument that the law quoted above applies to the institution and not opposition of legal suits is untenable. The underlying principle in the law as quoted deals with representation of corporates. That representation might entail either institution or opposition of suit. **Wherefore it is ordered that,** 1. **The Applicant’s point in limine be and is hereby upheld;** 2. **The Respondent’s notice of opposition and supporting documents are struck off the record; and** 3. **The Court shall proceed to issue judgement on the merits in due course.** **G MUSARIRI** **J-U-D-G-E**