This is an application for leave to appeal against the decision of this court of 7 July 2021 in case HC 4469/20, judgment HH 352/21.Applicants filed two applications, HC 1230/19 and HC 3457/19, with this court which they did not persue until the respondent filed a chamber application for their dismissal for want of prosecution under case HC 4469/20. On 19 March 2021, the day of the hearing of the initial chamber application, applicants persuaded the court that they be given more time to set down their two matters.
The presiding judicial officer granted their request and by consent from... More
The application before me is an application for leave to execute pending appeal. The facts of the case have been covered in detail in the pleadings and what appears below is a brief summary of the relevant facts.
The applicant hereinapplied to this Honourable Court to have an arbitral award registered. This application was opposed by the respondent. The respondent opposed the application for two main reasons; the first was that there was an application for stay of execution of the arbitral award pending before the Labour Court at the time the applicant sought to have the arbitral award registered.... More
[3] The factual conspectus giving rise to this application is not in material dispute. It is that the applicant was engaged as the respondent’s Underground Manager Paterson Grade G4 between May and June 2018. On 1 March 2019, he was appointed as the respondent’s Statutory Manager and acting Operations Mining Manager. The employment relationship was seemingly marred by irreconcilable differences to the point that on 24 November 2023, the applicant applied to a Principal Labour Officer with the Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Services for conciliation. In his application, the applicant laid allegations of non-payment of salaries and... More
The first respondent issued summons against the appellant and second respondent, in the court a quo. The appellant and second respondent were the defendants whilst first respondent was the plaintiff. The order sought had the following terms: More
The plaintiff is a medical doctor by profession. He was employed by the first defendant as Health Services Director until his contract of employment was terminated through compulsory retrenchment on 22 February 2015. The first defendant is a local authority established in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. It is responsible for the administration of the affairs of the Harare Metropolitan province. The second defendant is the authority reposed with mandate to record and register rights in real estate, as well as being the custodian of title deeds. A dispute arose between the plaintiff and first defendant in connection with... More
