This matter was originally set to be heard on 01 April 2020. Due to the onslaught of the CORONAVIRUS pandemic, the Chief Justice issued an instruction to the effect that courts would only deal with very urgent matters and the rest had to be postponed. This was in order to avoid unnecessary contaminations and curb infections. On the date of the hearing, applicants’ legal practitioners were contacted telephonically and informed of the position. It was also suggested to them that,
with their consent, the matter could be determined on the merits if they were satisfied that the documents they had... More
Please take note that the order handed down on the 10th of November, 2023 under reference LC/H/ORD/878/23 carries the following errors and omissions;
i. The Applicant was not in default but rather the Respondent was the one who was in default therefore the representative for the Applicant shall be amended from “in default” to “Mr S. Mwandiwanza.” (Legal Practitioner)
ii. The legal practitioner’s name who appeared for the Applicant on 1 November (the date of the hearing) was misspelt as “Mr.S Mwandiwanzira” it is corrected to read as ‘Mr.S.Mwandiwanza’. More
Applicant applied to this Court for the rescission of default judgment in terms of section 92(1)a of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 as read with Rule 40 of the Labour Court Rules S.I. 150/17. Respondents opposed the application. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award handed down on 15 May 2015, in terms of which it was ruled that the appellant’s contract of employment was lawfully terminated, as she had reached the retirement age of sixty years. More
This is an appeal against the respondents’ decision to dismiss the appellant. At the commencement of the hearing Ms Ndoro who appeared on behalf of the appellant indicated that in noting the appeal they relied on S92EE of the Labour Act, Chapter 28:01(the Act). Upon inquiry from the Court why they relied on S92EE of the Act when an appeal was under consideration it was stated that, that stance was adopted because the proceedings were tainted with bias. In addressing the Court both grounds for review and appeal were interchangeably referred to. Indeed paragraph 6 of the Heads of Argument... More
