On 9 December 2015 interim relief was granted in favour of the appellant employer so that the main appeal could be finalised. Since then nothing happened to the matter suggesting that there is no interest to have the appeal concluded. This has occasioned this court to invoke provisions of Section 89 (2) (a) (1) to dispose of the appeal on the papers. More
The first respondent sought to recruit a principal at its college. The first respondent flighted an advertisement to that effect. The second respondent was interested in the post and he was one of those who responded to the advertisement. The second respondent was shortlisted and he went through the selection process. He was eventually offered the position and he accepted to work as a principal with the respondent’s college More
This is an application for condonation of late noting of appeal. The application was lodged some three (3) years after the applicant’s dismissal from employment.I dismissed the application after reading the documents in chambers.
The facts of the matter are that the Appellant was dismissed from the Respondent’s employ for absenting himself from work without leave to do so.Efforts to call him for a hearing failed. More
Applicants were employed by the 2nd respondent in various managerial capacities. There were several investigations carried out upon the 2nd respondent. The Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission and the Criminal Investigation Department carried out separate investigations. The latter’s investigation culminated in the arrest of the applicants and their placement on remand at Chinhoyi Magistrates’ Court. 2nd respondent proceeded to suspend the applicants which suspension hinged on the criminal matter filed with the court. The applicants were subsequently acquitted. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the National Hearing Committee of the National Employment Council for the Communications and Allied Services Industry (Appeals Committee) which upheld the dismissal of the appellant from employment. The appellant was dismissed from employment by the respondent’s Regional Hearing Committee (Disciplinary Committee) after it found him guilty of misconduct in terms of the communications industry’s Code of Conduct. More
