Respondent was employed by the appellant as a procurement executive. For the sack of brevity the court will summarise the facts as follows. During the currency of her employment, respondent filed certain grievances with the appellant. These issues were deliberated upon by the appellant who dismissed them. Thereafter the appellant instituted misconduct proceedings against the respondent. Respondent declined to attend and the matter was heard in her absence. She was found guilty and dismissed from employment More
Respondents were employed by Appellant as builders on fixed term contracts from February 2008 until August, 2012. Respondents had several such contracts renewed at intervals. Respondents’ contracts of employment were terminated and the matter was brought before the National Employment Council for the Construction Industry for conciliation and subsequently to an Arbitrator. More
The following facts are common cause:
1.
Appellant worked for Respondent as a Property Manager.
2.
At the material times she was responsible for the Eastgate complex in Harare.
3.
The complex contained office space, a food court and retail business.
4.
Respondent leased space at the food court to a company called Opticare.
5.
Opticare then set up and ran a business called Captain’s Grill at the food court.
6.
Appellant’s husband Mr Allan Vutuzah, wasconnected to Opticare.
7.
The connexion led in due course to charges of misconduct being laid against Appellant by Respondent. More
At the conclusion of the oral submissions the court dismissed the appeal stating that there was no merit. Appellants’ legal counsel has requested for written reasons therefor. The following are the reasons.
Appellants were employed by respondent in various capacities at its Marondera Offices. It is alleged that appellants were assigned duties to assist in the distribution of agricultural inputs, namely fertiliser, to farmers in the area. It is alleged that the appellants received bags of fertiliser which they were not entitled to but should have been distributed to farmers who did not attend on the particular date of the... More
Before me, are two matters involving the same parties and based on the same facts. Case number LC/MS/REV/06/15 is the application for review whilst LC/MS/31/15 is the appeal. For the convenience of the court I have consolidated the judgments in these matters into one, whilst dealing with the application for review first and the appeal, thereafter. More
