The appellant was employed by the respondent.
In 2011, the appellant was part of seven employees who suffered burns at respondent’s plant in Kadoma.
Following that accident, a dispute arose between the parties which was later referred for arbitration. The dispute evolved around the issue of what it was that was payable to the appellant as compensation. The appellant alleged that the respondent was withholding his compensation from the insurers. It was further alleged that the respondents were reneging on an agreement which had been reached during conciliation. More
This is an appeal from a decision of the respondent’s Appeals Committee, which upheld the dismissal of the appellant from the respondent’s employment.
The basic facts of this matter are that the respondent was employed by the appellant as Banking Hall Supervisor. He was charged with misconduct in terms of the National Employment Council for the Zimbabwe Energy Industry Code of Conduct and Grievance Handling Procedures (NEC Code). The charge, framed from section 7 (1) (i) (v) of the NEC Code, was Dishonesty, that is to say; falsifying an official document or electronic record of a Company/Organisation or wilfully recording... More
On 11th January 2016 at Harare, Arbitrator J Madziya issued an arbitration award. He dismissed the appellant’s claims against the respondent. The appellant then appealed to this court against the award. The respondent opposed the appeal. More
An application for rescission of judgment is one where the court is called upon to exercise its indulgence for the default, having considered the requirements to be satisfied.
The applicant filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. On the application her address of service was of her preferred representatives. The matter was set down for hearing on 16 February 2016. On the appointed date neither the representatives nor the applicant appeared. More
At the commencement of the proceedings Mr Chopamba sought to apply for a postponement as the respondent had not formally filed a response to the Notice of Appeal. He stated that the reason for late filing of the response was that the respondent had not timeously received the requisite authorisation to brief-out Counsel from the Attorney General’s Office. He stated that it was a requirement that written approval be given by that office before instructing a legal practitioner. Mr Chopamba, further submitted that the application for condonation for late filing of the response could not be done in time as... More
