This matter was previously set down on 30 June 2010 before Matanda –Moyo J. The Judge issued an order for the matter to be postponed sine die. The matter was to be set down once the Heads of Argument were filed. The matter was re-set for 13 February 2014and none of the parties have appeared. The return of service shows that the offices of the union have relocated to an unknown address, which means that the respondent was not served. However, the return in respect of appellant shows that it was served on Wintertons Legal Practitioners on 24 January 2014.... More
On 6 November 2015 arbitrator J Chihlaba issued on arbitration award at Harare. He ordered appellant to pay respondents their notice pay which the former had withheld. Appellant then appealed to this Court against the award. More
This is an application for review.
The background is that the applicant alleges that she was employed by the 2nd respondent. The applicant’s services were terminated by the 2nd Respondent in December 2014 after the government had indicated that it was going to employ qualified ECD teachers in January of 2015. The applicant argued that she ought to have been retrenched but she was not. She argues that she was this fairly dismissed. More
Appellant appealed to this Court against her dismissal from employment by Respondent who opposed the appeal.
The grounds of appeal were three-fold as follows;
“1. The Respondent grossly erred and/or misdirected himself in his assessment of the evidence that was placed before the Disciplinary Committee. More
On the 10th of April 2019 at Harare Applicant, qua Designated Agent made a ruling. She ordered 1st Respondent (employer) to pay 2nd to 12th Respondent (employees) a total sum of $21,065-45 in respect of their retrenchment package or terminal benefits. The payments were due within thirty (30) days of the ruling. Apparently the employer did not comply. Applicant then applied to this Court in terms of section 93 (5a) of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01(hereafter called the Act) for the confirmation of her ruling. The employer supported the application. The employees opposed the application. More
