Welcome to Midlands State University Library

Court Judgements



Browse Court Judgements by court
The Applicant, an employee of the Respondent, PetroZim Line (Pvt) Ltd, was dismissed from employment following a disciplinary hearing on June 21, 2022. The Applicant successfully challenged the process leading to his dismissal in a review application under case reference LC/H/534/22. This court effectively set aside the initial disciplinary proceedings on grounds of procedural irregularities. The Respondent was directed to convene a hearing denovo within 60 days of the court order, pending which the Applicant was to revert to suspension with salary and benefits. On July 4, 2024, the Respondent issued a notice of a fresh disciplinary hearing scheduled for... More

At the onset of oral argument in this matter respondents raised 2 points in limine which applicant opposed. Thes points are: 1. That the application was filed prematurely: 2. That applicant does not have the right to file the application for review More

Applicant applied to this Court for the review of the determination by Respondent’s appeals committee which dismissed his appeal against the decision of the disciplinary committee. The application was made in terms of Section 92EE of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 as read with Rule 20 of the Labour Court Rules S.I. 150/17. More

The appellants worked for the respondent in Harare on fixed term contracts. The 1st appellant’s contract terminated presumably by effluxion of time. The 2nd appellant was terminated on grounds of misconduct. Both appellants then claimed they are entitled to cash in lieu of leave days not taken. The matter went for conciliation. The parties failed to settle whereupon the matter was referred to arbitration. On 25 August 2014 Arbitrator R E Nhiwatiwa issued an arbitration award. He dismissed the appellants’ claims “for lack of merit.” Thereafter the appellants appealed to this Court against the award. The respondent opposed the appeal. More

This is an application for condonation for late noting of an appeal. The application is almost three years out of time. A reading of the papers filed for the application would lead one to think that infact it is an application for review if one does not read the notice. The papers do not deal with the main issues that such an application must address. Only the reason for delay is addressed. Nevertheless the court was generous enough not to dismiss the application out of hand but pointed to the applicant the issues that needed to be addressed. The application... More