Kinshasa, June 25th, 2026 (CPA). – The reopening of proceedings has been ordered on Thursday, in an interim ruling handed down by the Matete Labour Court, in the centre of Kinshasa, capital of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), in a dispute over unfair dismissal between former employees and the company Ideal Entreprise, during a hearing.
“On this ground (…) having heard the opinion of the Public Prosecutor, the court orders ex officio the reopening of proceedings and directs the labour inspector for the jurisdiction, Mr Mbumba Masengo, to calculate the final settlements for the claimants Antoine Lutumba and others,” has pronounced Pierre Kiama, presiding judge of the panel. According to the documents in the case file, Mr Lutumba and his co-claimants had brought the case before this court in December 2025 to establish that their dismissal was unfair and to seek compensation for the losses they claim to have suffered. In their claims, they are seeking, in particular, payment of the equivalent in Congolese francs of 7,956 US dollars, representing thirty-six months’ worth of their final salary, as well as the settlement of their final pay statements and their outstanding salary arrears. The claimants are also seeking US$100,000 in damages, notice pay, and the return of their end-of-service certificates and their membership numbers with the National Social Security Fund. They have also informed the court that they had entered into a verbal employment contract with the aforementioned company and had never been subject to disciplinary proceedings, adding that on October 28th, 2025, the employer has decided to terminate their contracts following an irregular disciplinary procedure (…). For its part, the defendant (Societe Ideal Entreprise), taking the floor, in turn had raised a procedural objection. ‘The court should suspend this case on the grounds that the defendant has referred the matter to the Kinshasa-Matete Public Prosecutor’s Office for forgery against the labour inspector who has drawn up a report of failure to reach a settlement, even though the defendant has never appeared before him in the context of the conciliation proceedings, on the basis of the principle that “criminal proceedings take precedence over civil proceedings”.’ In his opinion, the public prosecutor has indicated that the court should declare the objection raised by the defendant inadmissible. In his view, the complaint referred to by the defence has been on file at the public prosecutor’s office since April 9th, 2026. To date, more than a month later, this case should already have been assigned a case number, but this is not the case. Therefore, criminal proceedings have not been initiated.ACP/