This is an application for condonation of late filing of heads of argument. It is common cause that at the commencement of litigation between the parties applicant was represented by a trade union representative. At some stage during the litigation process, the trade union representative decided to engage the services of a legal practitioner. This firm of legal practitioners was styled Macheyo Law Chambers. It is also common cause that at a later stage, applicant’s current legal practitioners came on board and represented the applicant. During this litigation process respondent caused to be served on Macheyo Law Chambers a notice... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the arbitrator where he dismissed application for rescission of judgment filed by the now appellant in a matter where default judgment had been entered for the now respondent employer. More
This is an application for review of a decision by the respondent dismissing the applicant from its employ. The applicant was aggrieved by the following:
i) That no oral evidence was called to enable him to cross examine witnesses; that there was unnecessary splitting of charges; that – the Appellant was found guilty of an offence which he was not originally charged with; that on appeal within the internal process the Appellate Tribunal was not supposed to call for evidence; that the internal review process was improperly exercised. The applicant was also aggrieved by the Disciplinary Committee’s decision to impose... More
On 3rd March 2023 at Bindura, Labour Officer L. Denhere issued a ruling which reads,
“Having considered the foregoing analysis I dismiss the claims for underpayment and non-payment of termination benefits. The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant cash in lieu of for 90 days accrued and give him a reference letter.”
Appellant (employee) then appealed the ruling in terms of section 92D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 hereafter called the Act. Respondent (employer) opposed the appeal. More
This is an application for review of a decision by an arbitrator. The decision follows a referral of the matter by this court on three terms of reference as follows;
“(a) Whether or not Fidelity Life Assurance Company had jurisdiction to discipline the Respondent.
(b) Whether or not Respondent was unfairly dismissed.
(c) The appropriate remedy”.
The dismissal referred to is by the second respondent. The first respondent’s
penalty was a final written warning. More
