Unfair Dismissal: Former Worker Seeks Payment of Final Settlement

Kinshasa, February 26^th, 2026 (CPA). – A former worker on Thursday petitioned his former employer for payment of his final settlement following what he described as unfair dismissal, during a hearing before the Matete Labor Court in central Kinshasa, capital of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). “My client, Mr. Mbavu, has come before you to request payment of his final settlement. (…) He has suffered serious prejudice from the company Hodari. That is why he asks you to apply Article 258 of Book III of the Civil Code, claiming the sum of USD 200,000 in damages and interest. He also requests the application of Article 63 of the Labor Code regarding unfair dismissal,” pleaded counsel for Mr. Mbavu, the former employee. According to his lawyer, the companies Fameco and Hodari entered into arrangements and signed a service lease contract, proposing that Fameco workers join Hodari. “Hodari did not recruit my client as a new worker; it found him already employed at Fameco. Hodari first contacted Fameco before asking my client whether he wished to join the company or pursue another path. He agreed to join Hodari and signed a contract with a salary of CDF 700,000,” he explained. He added that Hodari later proposed that Mr. Mbavu work in two shifts (morning and evening), which he refused. Following this refusal, the company dismissed him. As a result, Mr. Mbavu referred the matter to the Labor Inspectorate to assert his rights. For its part, the defense argued before the court that in labor matters all procedures must comply strictly with the law. It maintained that under Article 298 of the Labor Code, individual labor disputes must first be submitted to the competent local Labor Inspector—namely the inspector of the place of execution of the contract—and not to the General Labor Inspector. The defense emphasized that Articles 191 and 192 define jurisdictional competence. In the present case, it argued, Mr. Mbavu did not refer the matter to the territorially competent Labor Inspector but instead seized the General Labor Inspector. Consequently, his claim should be declared inadmissible. “Hodari has only one submission before you: the present action must be declared inadmissible,” counsel stated. The defense further contended that Mr. Mbavu had no formal contract with Fameco and worked there as a day laborer. Hodari later hired him under a fixed-term contract (CDD). After assessing his performance, the company converted the contract into an open-ended contract (CDI). “After signing his open-ended contract, Mr. Mbavu changed his attitude toward his employer. He also disclosed professional secrets of Hodari to other companies,” the defense argued. In light of these facts, the company requested explanations from him. After his response, he was suspended in accordance with the law. Upon the lifting of the suspension, the company proceeded to dismiss him for gross misconduct. For his part, the public prosecutor requested that the case file be transmitted to his office in order to issue a written advisory opinion. “We have carefully followed the pleadings of both parties, but in order to render a well-informed opinion, we request that the case file be communicated to us so that we may submit our opinion in writing,” the prosecutor stated. “The Court grants your request, Mr. Prosecutor. The case file will be communicated to you within the time limit provided by law,” concluded Pierre Kiama, presiding judge.