The Appellant lodged his appeal against the determination by the Negotiating Committee of the Commercial Sector handed down on 13 June, 2011, reversing an earlier decision by the Mashonaland Local Committee and upholding the employer’s decision to dismiss him from employment. More
The background facts to this matter are largely common cause. The respondents were employed by the applicant as security guards on fixed term contracts renewable every three months. Their duties were in respect to the applicant’s quasi fiscal activities which were finally wound up in the first quarter of 2011. The respondents’ period of employment ranged from 2007 and August 2008 to January and April 2011 when their contracts expired by effluxion of time and were not renewed. More
On 16th September 2011 the Honourable C Mesikano made an arbitration award. Amongst other things he ordered Appellant to pay Respondents an amount of US$9, 363, 362.18 with immediateeffect. Appellant then appealed to this Court against the award. Respondents opposed the appeal.
Two developments occurred in this Court which require recording. Firstly Appellant withdrew its Notice Of Amendment tothe grounds of appeal. The withdrawal was made orally at the commencement of oral arguments. Respondents had no issue/s with the withdrawal. That left the original grounds of appeal intact. Secondly both parties’ attorneys agreed to amend the citation of the parties... More
In a judgment handed down on 12 May 2015 Justice Smith (Retired), found the appellant guilty of various acts of misconduct, in terms of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations, Statutory Instrument 15 of 2006. The retired judge was the Hearing Officer in a disciplinary hearing convened by the respondent, to determine various allegations of misconduct levelled against the appellant, during his tenure as General Manager Finance, Zimbabwe Broadcasting Holdings (Pvt) Ltd. Consequent to his conviction on the charges of misconduct, the respondent’s Board of Directors terminated the appellant’s contract of employment. More
At the commencement of the proceedings, 2nd Appellant informed the Court that Appellants were waiting for a Mr. Mangwende who was coming to present the matter on their behalf. Mr. Mangwende’s motor vehicle was alleged to have broken down near Mutare. The Court inquired from 2nd Appellant whether this Mr. Mangwende was a legal practitioner or trade unionist. It turned out that he was neither. The court informed 2nd Appellant that in the result Mr. Mangwende could not present their case having regard to the provisions of section 92 of the Labour Act. Appellants thereafter made a decision to have... More
