THE Labour Court has ordered Peterhouse Group of Schools (Peterhouse) to reinstate its deputy head teacher Mirriam Shumba whose contract was “terminated in an arbitrary and capricious” manner.
This not only comes as the elite and Marondera-based school has faced numerous, and almost similar legal complaints before, but the incident also raises serious governance, transparancy and institutional accountability issues, as the court reportedly noted that the board had not sufficiently played its oversight role particularly in a matter involving its safeguarding officer (SO).
“The respondent (Peterhouse) is directed to reinstate the applicant (Shumba) to her position of deputy head, failing which the first respondent is directed to pay the applicant damages… which shall be quantified by the Labour court in the event that parties do not agree on the quantum..,” Justice Garudzo Ziyaduma said in an April 08 judgment.
“It is declared that the termination… of the fixed term contract, which was signed on 18 September 2024… was flawed and hence irregular. It is declared that the purported appointment of another deputy head whilst the employment contract of the applicant still subsisted amounts to unfair dismissal,” he said.
While the court — under case number LCH1307/25 — was partricularly miffed and critical of Peterhouse’s move to appoint Shumba’s replacement without considering her “legitimate expectation for contract renewal” in the absence of incompetence or underperformance evidence, and the contract was still four months running or valid, the school had tried to oppose the application on the basis that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction on the declaratory order or relief sought by the applicant and that contract renewal was not guaranteed.
However, Ziyaduma dismissed the argument on the basis that the “application was mainly grounded on Labour Act provisions and particularly those dealing with unfair dismissals”.
Besides approaching the board for recourse on her constructive dismissal – by virtue of the fact that the job or vacancy was not readvertised – it also emergd through court proceedings that the supreme council or governing body “did not intervene by remaining silent and not playing its oversight role of reviewing the matter as wel as seeking to protect the integrity of its SO”.
Crucially, the evidence presented in both the appeal and termination process was not independently investigated, and the board’s responses were “generally seen as dismissive as no formal inquiry was initiated”.
Further, Shumba’s replacement was allegedly announced at a school assembly and that her handover process was issued via e-mail, and thus she approached the Labour Court to argue that her rights has been violated.
Again, the court not only found that she had a reasonable expectation for contract renewal based on the “wording of the job advertisement and verbal assurances allegedly made by the school head at the time of signing the contract”, but Ziyaduma ruled that the school had particularly violated section 12B(3)(b) of the Labour Act, which deems the termination of a fixed-term contract amid legitimate re-engagement prospects.
This, the court said, means Peterhouse’s decision “was reached or made without a rational basis and without adherence to fair labour practice as well as procedure”.
A Peterhouse alumna and with deep family ties to the institution, Shumba returned from the United States to take up the SO role after it was “presented as a pathway to future leadership”.
According to court findings, assurances were made that contract renewal would be “procedural, routine” and would generally be extended.
But she found hereself on the wrong side as she was dismissed without her “concerns and employment relationship with the private shool being formally evaluated, and concluded before any replacement was announced”.
This, labour analysts said, effectively created the impression that the outcome had been predetermined before any fair and hearing process had taken place.
According to the court record, no e-mails, reports or formal communications raising performance concerns were produced prior to the decision amid indications that the only and alleged justification was that Shumba was “too nice”.
Thus, the court not only considered that the handling of internal concerns raised by the former deputy head – an individual tasked with the crucial role of ensuring student welfare protection and institutional accountability, but found Peterhouse liable on four key points or legal aspects, including lack of due process, no structured procedure followed, absence of evidence and undocumented or substantiated justification for terminating Shumba’s contract.
Rutendo Ngara
