The appellant was employed by the respondent as a supervisor. The parties mutually terminated the employment contract on 4 November 2014.
The agreement was reduced into writing and appellant was paid his terminal benefits in terms of the deed of settlement.
In August 2015 the appellant referred a complaint to a labour officer against respondent for non-payment of overtime.
When conciliation efforts failed the matter was referred to an arbitrator. The arbitrator dismissed the claim predominantly on the basis that appellant failed to prove his claim. More
This matter was set down as an application for confirmation of a ruling by a labour officer in terms of Section 93 (5) Labour Amendment Act. On the hearing date the employer raised a point in limine to the effect that the matter was improperly before the court. This was so taking into account two recent decisions of Sakarombe v Montana Meats SC-4-10 and Isoquant Investment v Darku No CCZ 6/20. The employer’s argument was that the labour officer sat on the matter as if it were an appellate body contrary to the spirit of Montana Meats (supra). It also... More
This judgement only deals with points in limine raised by the respondent employer. The 2 points are, that there is no clear relief sought by the appellant thus making the appeal fatally defective and susceptible to being struck off the roll.The2nd point is that appellant has raised in grounds 1 and 8 review issues in an appeal. Ground 1 pertains toflouting of timelines by therespondent employer and ground 8 relates to issues around minutes of the disciplinary proceedings. In like manner it is respondent’s view that these 2 grounds have to be expurged from the record for being bad at... More
An arbitral award was made in this matter dealing with the parties’ employment dispute. Both parties were not satisfied by the arbitral award of 14 November 2011. The appellants noted an appeal to this court under case number LC/H/694/11 and the Respondent filed a cross appeal under case number LC/H/698/11. An application was made to this court for consolidation of the two cases. The application was granted. To avoid confusion in references Sydney Rukweza and Godfrey Duwati shall be referred to as the appellants and Marondera Rural District Council shall be referred to as the cross appellant. More
