This matter was set down as an application for condonation of late noting of an appeal. Before me are two points in limine that were raised.
Respondents obtained an arbitral award in their favour whose operative part reads as follows;
“1. The charges against the claimants (respondents in casu) are calculated to victimize the claimants. They are illegal and must be stayed.
2. The respondents (applicant in casu) is committing unfair labour practice.
3. Each party to pay its own costs as per agreed quantum.” More
This is an appeal against the determination of a labour officer issued on 24 December 2020, in terms of which he found the respondent not guilty of misconduct charges that had been preferred against him by the appellant. More
This is an application for condonation of the late filing of an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
In a judgment dated 6 January 2023, this Court set aside the decision of Determining Authority which had found the Respondent Not Guilty of the misconduct charges. The Court ordered parties to file submissions pertaining to issues of aggravation and mitigation. In a further decision dated 13 April 2023, this Court issued a penalty of a Final Written Warning and ordered Respondent’s reinstatement to her former position without loss of salary and benefits failure of which Respondent was entitled... More
Mr. Mafongoya submitted that the appropriate penalty in the matter was not dismissal. He referred to section 65 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe which provides for citizens being accorded the right to fair labour practices. He also referred to the ZIMRA Code of Conduct particularly Clauses 6.2, 6.3, 6.4 with the latter providing that training and education should be the paramount features of any punishment and any punitive penalty should be adopted as a last resort. He referred to case law which provides that an employer has the discretion to mete a penalty of dismissal where the misconduct in question... More
This is an appeal against the decision of a labour officer acquitting respondent from wrongdoing. The appellant employer was aggrieved by that decision. It appealed to this Court. More
