This is an appeal against the decision of the Arbitrator who confirmed the dismissal of the Appellants by the Respondent University.
Facts of the case are that; the Appellants who were employed as Information Record Clerks by the Respondent were brought before a Disciplinary Committee on allegations of conducting themselves in a manner inconsistent with the conditions of their employment and fraud in contravention of the National Code of Conduct SI 15 of 2006. More
The matter was heard in Mutare in May 2010. The parties by consent agreed to file Supplementary Heads of Argument. The court would thereafter hand down judgment on the basis of the written submissions. After the date of hearing the record got misplaced in the registry. It was only referred back to me in July 2013 for hand down of judgment. Any inconvenience to the parties is sincerely regretted.
The Appellant was employed by the Respondent as a Security Sergeant and had been employed in that capacity for 10 years. He was suspended from employment on 22 October 2003 on... More
The matter was heard in Mutare in May 2010. The parties by consent agreed to file Supplementary Heads of Argument. The court would thereafter hand down judgment on the basis of the written submissions. After the date of hearing the record got misplaced in the registry. It was only referred back to me in July 2013 for hand down of judgment. Any inconvenience to the parties is sincerely regretted.
The Appellant was employed by the Respondent as a Security Sergeant and had been employed in that capacity for 10 years. He was suspended from employment on 22 October 2003 on... More
The material background facts to the matter are as follows. The 1st Respondent on 5 May 2021. referred to Applicant a claim for unfair dismissal. This was based on allegations that he had been verbally dismissed by 2nd Respondent’s General Manager. The Applicant submitted before Applicant that he had been employed as Operations Compliance Manager. He had worked for 2nd Respondent for more than 34 years. He was due to retire in November 2020 after attaining the age of 65 years. He was however verbally terminated on 30 April 2020. Applicant was therefore claiming an unfair termination as the 2nd... More
This is an application for backpay. This hearing is arising from a Supreme Court decision that referred the matter back for determination on the ground that the court as an equity court should not apply strict rules of evidence but should call expert evidence to assist in determining the backpay that should be paid. Previously the court had dismissed the claim as the applicant could not bring evidence to show how his backpay should be determined in view of the changes that the Zimbabwe currency had gone through during the relevant period. More
