The facts of the case are as follows:
The appellant is in the business of providing security (guards). On or about the 22nd of May 2012 one of the appellant’s clients raised an alarm. This meant that something was wrong. The respondent was on duty. He was party to a team that went tocheck the premises in question. Two other people who included a driver were the other members of that team. Upon arrival at the scene it was observed that the main gate or entrance to the premises was locked. However, the screen door to the building-which door is... More
This is an appeal against a decision of the Negotiating Committee handed down on the 3rd October, 2011 by which the Appellant was ordered to reinstate he Respondent without loss of salary and benefits from the date of dismissal. More
This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against my judgment of 18 March 2016 in which I dismissed an application for condonation of late filing of an appeal.
The 189 applicants are former employees of the respondent who were each employed at different times in various capacities. They were retrenched on 30 June 2010 following each applicant signing a retrenchment agreement. Such agreements were duly approved by the Retrenchment Board on 12 July 2010 and each applicant was paid their dues. More
It is not clear who is alleged to have violated the afore-quoted provisions. Was
it the respondent? Further it is not clear how the provisions were allegedly violated. This raised questions about the validity of the Notice of Appeal. The notice is required to have cognizable grounds of appeal. The notice in casu is very vague to say the least. Such notice should not leave the Court to speculate on what it is that the appellant requires to be determined by the Court. It is the duty of the appellant to set out clear, concise and cognizable grounds of appeal.... More
This is an appeal in which the respondent has raised a point in limine. In submissions on behalf of the respondent the point was raised that the appeal is not properly before this Court. This was submitted in view of the initial citation of one of the parties. The respondent submitted that the “Ministry of Home Affairs” is not a competent party because it is not a legal persona. (See Gariya Safaris (Pvt) Ltd v Van Wyke 1996(2) ZLR 246(H).I agree with that submission and the authorities cited. More
