Appellant appealed against her dismissal from employment by Respondent. With the consent of Respondent, she amended her three grounds of appeal by dropping the first 2 grounds. The remaining ground was amended to read as follows,
“The allegations of misconduct are far fetched, ill-conceived and there is no evidence led to prove the allegations of misconduct.”
Respondent opposed the appeal.
The crisp issue became whether the evidence tendered proved the offence charged. The charges were fraud and an act inconsistent with the conditions of the employment contract. It was specifically alleged that,
“… you wrongfully, unlawfully and fraudulent misrepresented information... More
On the date of hearing of this appeal, the respondent raised two preliminary points. The first preliminary issue was that the appellant’s heads of argument were filed out of the prescribed time frame. The second issue was that the grounds of appeal did not raise questions of law and therefore improperly before the court. More
This is an application for late noting of review of the alleged dismissal from employment by the respondent. It is alleged that they were dismissed from employment in January 2011. There is no decision by the Tribunal to be reviewed. There was no hearing that was conducted at the work place. They were just informed by the headmaster that their services were no longer required by the school. There is no decision to be reviewed in this case. Parties should follow other channels, to redress their grievance. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the respondent’s Acting Chief Executive Officer. The appellant was employed as a Restaurant Manager. She was charged and convicted of conduct or omission which is inconsistent with the fulfilment of the express or implied conditions of the contract of employment. A penalty of dismissal was meted by the Designated Hearing Officer. The penalty was confirmed by the General Manager and subsequently by the Acting Chief Executive Officer. More
On 1st July 2016 at Harare, the applicant made a ruling in her official capacity as a Labour Officer. She ordered the respondent to reinstate ArtwellMadhunguyo in its employ. The applicant then applied to this court for the confirmation of her ruling. The respondent opposed the application. More
