Welcome to Midlands State University Library

Court Judgements



Browse Court Judgements by court
The applicant was employed by the respondent as its General Manager under the Properties Division. The Division was later established into a company called Old Mutual Investment Group - Property Investments. In June 2010 the respondent sought permission from the Retrenchment Board to retrench the applicant. The Retrenchment Board granted authority. The applicant was aggrieved by the decision of the Retrenchment Board and referred a complaint to the labour officer. A certificate of no settlement having been then issued the matter was referred to compulsory arbitration under section 93 of the Labour Act [Cap 28:01]. More

Appellant was employed by Respondent as a Veterinary Extension Worker in the Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanisation and Irrigation Development. More

The matter was placed before me as an application for condonation of late noting of appeal. On the date of hearing the Respondent took a point in limine that by virtue of the provisions in Section 92 of the Labour Act [Cap 28:01]which provisions limit representation of parties in the Labour Court to registered legal practitioners or official/employees of registered trade union/employer organization of which the employee is a member; that it being very clear that by the time of his dismissal the Applicant was not a member of any trade union affiliated toZimbabwe Congress of Trade Union(Z.C.T.U.) and that... More

This is an application for quantification of damages following this Court’s order of reinstatement in applicant’s favour which confirmed an earlier arbitral award. More

Applicant employee approached this court on 3 review grounds namely 1. Improper constitution of disciplinary Committee 2.1 Grossly irregular disciplinary proceedings based on fact that done after matter referred to a labour officer per Sec 101(6) of the labour Act. 2.2 Denial of legal representation 3) Grossly unreasonable findings without evidence. The Chairperson of the disciplinary Committee was sued in his official capacity so on the date of the review hearing only the employee and the employer appeared to argue the matter. The employer took points in limine vis grounds 2.1, 2.2, and 3 saying that these were not review... More