This is an appeal against an arbitral award which reversed a decision of the disciplinary committee which had found the respondent guilty of misconduct and dismissed him from employment.
The respondent was employed by the appellant as a charge hand. In October 2006 he was appointed to be acting superintendent. In 2008 he then performed the duties of assistant workshop manager in an acting capacity. More
This is an application for upliftment of the automatic bar operating against the applicant after failing to file heads of argument timeously. It is opposed. It was also noted that the applicant’s legal practitioners did not file an assumption agency. They should have done so as required by the rules. The rules are clear on this and it is a mandatory requirement. Rule 18 of the Rules of this court, Statutory Instrument 59 of 2006 provides that: ‘’ (1) If a party is represented by a legal practitioner, the legal practitioner shall file a written notice of assumption of agency... More
The applicant is applying for leave to appeal against the judgment of this court that was handed down on 31 January 2020.
The applicant had retired the Respondent at the age of 60 years instead of 65 years. Retirement at the age of 60 years was provided for in the Pension Fund. Retirement at the age of 65 years was provided for in the contract of employment.
This court found that the applicant had no lawful right to reduce the retirement age to 60 years. More
The brief history of the matter is that respondents are employed by applicantas petrol men (Grade 11) and stationed at various sections. The respondents raised a grievance of unfair grading in terms of the grievance handling procedure to the immediate supervisor.
The supervisor ruled in favour of the applicants. The respondents then took up the matter to the Public Safety Director who also found in favour of the applicant. The matter was then referred to the Employment Council for Harare Municipal Undertaking for conciliation. A certificate of no settlement was signed at conciliation. The applicant also ruled that respondents were... More
On 4th May 2010 this Court made a default order in favour of the Respondents. The order directed Applicant to reinstate Respondents or alternatively pay them damages in lieu of reinstatement. The order was made by reason of Applicant’s default.
On 18th March 2011 the Court granted Applicant leave to file a belated application for rescission of the earlier order. On 19th May 2011 Applicant filed the application for rescission. In matters of this nature an Applicant is required
to show good cause in order to obtain relief. The main pertinent factors are the explanation for the default and the... More
