The facts of this matter are largely common cause. They are as follows:
All the eight appellants are former employees of the respondent. They were dismissed following disciplinary proceedings. The facts pertaining to the charges and evidence are similar hence their respective appeals have been consolidated into one record. Indeed, the respective heads of argument from both sides are the same with respect to each and every one of them. Each one of the appellants was charged with a violation of provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement: Mining Industry (Code of Conduct) Statutory Instrument 165/1992. More
On the 4th November 2021 at Harare, S. Nehohwa, in her capacity as a Designated Agent (DA) made a determination. She ordered appellant (employer) to pay respondent (employee) various amounts of money in respect of the salaries and benefits of the unexpired portion of the parties’ employment contract which had been “unlawfully” terminated. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award.
The appellant is the respondent’s former employer. The respondent was initially employed on a contract without limit of time on 2 May 2012 as an infant teacher. It appears that sometime in January 2013, the respondent attempted to vary that contract to a three months fixed term contract. The respondent queried this in writing. More
Applicant applied for damages for loss of employment in the total sum of US$43,656.00 inclusive of back-pay and benefits. Respondent opposed the application but offered damages in the sum of US$11,575.00. The application was premised upon an order of this Court. The order compelled Respondent to either reinstate Applicant’s employment or pay him damages in lieu of reinstatement. Apparently reinstatement was ruled out leaving assessment of damages as the outstanding issue. More
This is an opposed application for review of the proceedings of the disciplinary committee against the applicant. The applicant is an employee of the respondent. He is employed as a Provincial Magistrate. He was charged of contravening the Judicial Service Regulations 2015, as read with the criminal law (Codification andReform) Act, Chapter 9:23. He was also charged in the alternative of contravening the same Judicial Service Regulations as read with the Magistrates Code of Ethics of 2019. He was convicted of the main charge and consequently found not guilty of the alternative charge. A penalty of discharge way imposed. More
