MSUL | Midlands State University Library

Court Judgements

Browse Court Judgements by court

THETFORD ESTATE (PVT ) LTD APPLICANT AND ONISIMO MAGAISA 1ST RESPONDENT STEPHEN MUKWEPI 2ND RESPONDENT DICKSON MABHENA 3RD RESPONDENT MUTIZWA MANDAZA 4TH RESPONDENT TINASHE MANYIKA 5TH RESPONDENT NAISON ANDERSON 6TH RESPONDENT CAIN CHAZAWARI 7TH RESPONDENT JULIAS JAMWANGA 8TH RESPONDENT K MURENJE N. O. 9TH RESPONDENT (2023-06-30)

On 20 January 2023 the applicant received a summons from Mlotshwa Solicitors, another law firm, showing that the 1st to the 8th respondents were claiming outstanding salaries against it in the sum of USD$20,000.00 at the High Court. This according to Jackson was the first time that the applicant became aware of the matter. Following receipt of the summons the applicant became aware that a Designated agent , the 9th respondent ,had made a determination against it on the 20th of October 2022. This means that in terms of the Rules an application for review against the determination by the... More

THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR REVIEW IN TERMS OF SECTION 89(I)(DI) AND 92 EE(I) OF THE LABOUR ACT [CAP 28:01] AS AMENDED BY THE LABOUR(AMENDMENT) ACT 5 OF 2015 AND AS ALSO READ WITH RULE 20(I) OF THE LABOUR COURT RULES, 2017. IN LIMINE THE APPLICANT THROUGH HIS HEADS OF ARGUMENT TOOK A POINT IN LIMINE THAT THE RESPONDENTS WERE IMPROPERLY BEFORE THE COURT AND WERE TECHNICALLY BARRED. IT WAS APPLICANT CONTENTION THAT IN TERMS OF RULE 20(2) OF THE LABOUR COURT RULES 2017, A NOTICE OF RESPONSE TO AN APPLICATION FOR REVIEW HAS TO BE FILED WITHIN TEN DAYS OF THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THIS APPLICATION. IN THIS CASE THE RESPONDENTS HAVING BEEN SERVED WITH THE APPLICATION FOR REVIEW ON THE 17TH OF DECEMBER, 2019 WERE REQUIRED TO HAVE FILED THEIR RESPONSE WITHIN TEN DAYS OF THAT DATE. THE RESPONDENTS HAD HOWEVER FILED THEIR NOTICE OF RESPONSE ON THE 1ST OF JANUARY 2020 CLEARLY OUT OF TIME. (2020-07-31)

This is an application for review in terms of Section 89(i)(di) and 92 EE(i) of the Labour Act [Cap 28:01] as amended by the Labour(Amendment) Act 5 of 2015 and as also read with rule 20(I) of the Labour Court rules, 2017. IN LIMINE The Applicant through his heads of argument took a point in limine that the Respondents were improperly before the court and were technically barred. It was Applicant contention that in terms of Rule 20(2) of the Labour Court Rules 2017, a Notice of Response to an application for review has to be filed within ten days... More

THIS IS AN APPLICATION IN TERMS OF RULE 22. THE RESPONDENT FAILED TO FILE ITS NOTICE OF RESPONSE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME. THE BRIEF HISTORY OF THE MATTER IS OUTLINED BELOW: ON 12 OCTOBER 2015 THE MATTER WAS REFERRED BEFORE ME IN TERMS OF RULE 22 OF THE LABOUR COURT RULES. THE RESPONDENT HAD BEEN SERVED WITH AN APPLICATION FOR REVIEW AND AN APPEAL. THE APPEAL AND THE APPLICATION FOR REVIEW HAD BEEN DULY SERVED ON THE RESPONDENT ON 9 JUNE 2015. CERTIFICATES OF SERVICE WERE FILED AS OF RECORD TO PROVE SUCH SERVICE. (2016-09-09)

This is an application in terms of Rule 22. The respondent failed to file its notice of response within the prescribed time. The brief History of the matter is outlined below: On 12 October 2015 the matter was referred before me in terms of rule 22 of the Labour Court rules. The respondent had been served with an application for review and an appeal. The appeal and the application for review had been duly served on the respondent on 9 June 2015. Certificates of service were filed as of record to prove such service. More

THIS IS AN APPLICATION IN TERMS OF SECTION 92E (3) OF THE LABOUR ACT [CHAPTER 28:01] FOR STAY OF AN ARBITRAL AWARD IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. THE AWARD WAS MADE BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON THE 12 JULY 2013. APPLICANT WAS ORDERED TO REINSTATE 1ST RESPONDENT WITH FULL WAGES AND BENEFITS AMOUNTING TO $2 280,00. IF REINSTATEMENT IS NOT AN OPTION IN THE FOLLOWING TWENTY ONE WORKING DAYS, APPLICANT WAS TO PAY DAMAGES IN LIEU OF REINSTATEMENT THE QUANTUM OF WHICH THE PARTIES MAY AGREE, FAILURE WHICH EITHER PARTY MAY APPROACH THE ARBITRATOR FOR QUANTIFICATION. APPLICANT WAS ALSO ORDERED TO PAY $ 684 AS CASH IN LIEU OF PROTECTIVE CLOTHING. ALL IN ALL APPLICANT WAS ORDERED TO PAY A TOTAL OF $3 016,00 BY 30 AUGUST 2013. (2013-11-28)

This an application for review of an arbitral award in terms of Article34(2) of the 1st schedule to the Arbitration Act. The Arbitrators ordered as follows; “1. From 1January 2011 to 30June 2011 – the current wage position will prevail for that period. 2.From 1July 2011 to 31December 2011 – an increase on the present minimum wage of grade one of the Ferro –Alloy NEC of 20%.” More

THOMAS CHIKWAWI APPLICANT MAZOWE MINE RESPONDENT (2013-05-09)

On 3rd September 2010 this Court ordered Respondent to reinstate Applicant or pay him damages in lieu of reinstatement. Respondent chose to pay damages. The parties were unable to agree on quantum of the damages. Applicant then filed this application for assessment of damages. Respondent filed opposing papers. The attorneys agreed that the matter be determined on the basis of the documents filed of record. More

Electronic Court judgements

Court Judgements