Welcome to Midlands State University Library

Court Judgements



Browse Court Judgements by court
Appellant worked for Respondent as a teacher. He was charged with various acts of misconduct. The main offence was improper association with a female pupil at his school. A hearing was conducted. He was found guilty and then dismissed from employment. He has appealed to this Court against the dismissal. More

The Applicant in casu who had been represented throughout but was now appearing as a self actor explained the extent of delay and the reasons thereof. He submitted that the extent of delay being 3 months was a short period of delay. He had to wait for 3 months from the date of receipt of the quantification award due to discussions that were ongoing between the parties. He was also short of funds and could not secure the services of a legal practitioner. Upon retaining the services of counsel he had then filed the present application for condonation of late... More

This is an application for condonation for late filing an application for review. It is opposed. At the commencement of the proceedings the Court drew the applicant’s attention to the terms of the draft order. More

This is an appeal against the decision of the Negotiating Committee Appeals Board which confirmed the Appellant’s dismissal following allegations of unsatisfactory performance of his duties at the Respondent company where he was employed at the time of the alleged misconduct. Facts of the case are that on 13th October 2011 Appellant was carrying out his security guard duties at Tiger Transport where Respondent Company had been contracted to provide security services. During that period 2 heavy duty batteries were stolen from one of the trucks parked at the place where the Appellant was guarding. More

This is an appeal against an arbitral award handed down at Masvingo on the 14th of October, 2011. The Respondent opposes the appeal and has also noted a cross-appeal against the same arbitral award. The background facts to the matter are as follows; The Respondents were employed by theAppellant on fixed term contracts. They were employed as Shop Assistants Grade 4 (as submitted by Appellant and rebutted by Respondent) in respect of Kapitano, Davison Gavaya and Cashier grade 6 (Jane Madondo). The terms of office were supposed to expire in the case of I. Kapitano in May 2011, for D.... More