This is an application for condonation of late noting of appeal. It is opposed. Two preliminary issues were taken on behalf of the respondent before the application could be argued. These have to be determined before the main application is heard as they may have the ability to dispose of the matter and therefore obviate the need to determine the merits .See TELECEL Zimbabwe (Private) Limited v Postal and Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of Zimbabwe and Others HH446/15.The two issues are that (i) the matter has prescribed and (ii) the application is defective. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Negotiating Committee of the National Employment Council for the Commercial Sectors which confirmed on appeal, an earlier dismissal verdict from employment of Appellant by the Mashonaland Local Joint Committee.
The Appellant was employed by Respondent as a security guard and at the material time he was guarding at the main gate at AfdisSoutherton. Appellant was charged for dishonesty and other related offences, in particular, theft in terms of the Code of Conduct for the Commercial Sectors. It has alleged that he had stolen a 750 mls bottle of Amarula and another... More
Applicant applied to this Court for rescission of judgment which Respondent opposed. The application was made in terms of section 92C of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 as read with Rule 40 of the Labour Court Rules S.I. 150 of 2017. The material facts are set out hereafter. More
Appellant appealed to this Court against his dismissal from employment by Respondent. The appeal was made in terms of section 92D of the Labour Act chapter 28:01.
The appeal grounds of appeal were ten-fold. It is inexpedient to regurgitate word for word the lengthy grounds of appeal. However, the grounds raise four issues which will be dealt with ad seriatim. More
This is an application for quantification of damages following an order of this Court dated 15 May 2013. This Court ordered the reinstatement of applicant without loss of salary and benefits. In the event that reinstatement was no longer possible, respondent was to pay damages in lieu of reinstatement. The parties failed to agree on the quantum of damages. More
