THE High Court in Bulawayo has dealt a crushing blow to Vungu Rural District Council (RDC), dismissing its desperate bid to overturn a default judgment that allows workers to seize council assets over more than US$250 000 in unpaid salaries.
Justice Bongani Ndlovu ruled that the Midlands council had no valid grounds to rescind the judgment, given that it had been properly served with court papers but "chose to sit back and do nothing."
The bitter dispute dates back to July 2025, when an arbitral award ordered Vungu RDC to pay over US$250 000 in salary arrears and benefits to workers represented by the Zimbabwe Rural District Councils Workers’ Union.
The local authority appealed to the Labour Court in October, but the union swiftly moved to register the award for enforcement at the High Court.
On November 25, 2025, the union secured a default judgment when council failed to respond.
The judgment was issued in early December, triggering the attachment of council assets.
Desperate to stop the execution, Vungu RDC stormed back to court arguing that it was denied a fair hearing.
Council claimed it received short notices, faced inconsistent filing directions between Bulawayo and Harare and alleged procedural defects.
- High Court throws out ex-NetOne boss application
- City council boss bounces back
- Labour, and administrative courts to go digital month-end
- Worker fired for reporting boss ‘peeping over wall’ at him in toilet
Keep Reading
Its lawyer insisted that the judgment was “snatched” unfairly.
But the union fought back, accusing council of playing games.
It argued that Vungu RDC was properly served in September 2025, but deliberately ignored the proceedings, adding that the rescission application was an afterthought triggered by the reality of asset seizure.
Justice Ndlovu rejected council’s arguments, emphasising that litigants cannot ignore court processes and then cry foul when a judgment goes against them.
“The applicant does not dispute that it was served with the application... and chose to sit back and do nothing,” the judge noted, warning that such conduct undermines the integrity of court processes.
The court also dismissed council’s technical objections, including claims about undated affidavits, finding them meritless.
