This is an application for the dismissal of an application for quantification of damages which was correctly made in terms of Rule 19(3)(a) of the Rules of this Court. More
This is an appeal against the decision of Honourable Arbitrator Ms S Changawa dated 26 September 2014.
The brief background of this matter is that the seventeen respondents were employed by the applicant in different capacities and earning different salaries. The respondents referred the matter of unfair dismissal and outstanding salaries for arbitration. More
This is an appeal by the Appellant against the decision of the Respondent’s Managing Director dismissing the Appellant from employment. On the date of hearing parties agreed that the matter be decided based on the submissions filed of record. To that extent no oral submissions were made by the parties hence this judgment is based on what is contained in the record of proceedings before it only. More
The applicant was employed by the 1st respondent as a music teacher from 2009 up to July of 2024. The respondent is a primary school in Harare. The applicant alleged that he had fallen sick sometime in January 2024 and thus could not report for work on the subsequent days. The applicant further alleged that he had informed the headmaster, one Mr Zheve that he was ill. The applicant further averred that sometime in February of 2024, his father then received a
letter from the 1st respondent threatening the applicant with dismissal from service should he continue absenting himself from... More
Appellant employed the respondent as a domestic worker. Following disagreements at the workplace, respondent reported her matter to the union officers culminating in the matter being referred to arbitration. The Arbitrator found in favour of respondent. Appellant was not satisfied with the decision and has appealed to this Court. Appellant’s main contention are, firstly, that the Arbitrator erred in finding that appellant had unlawfully dismissed the respondent. Secondly, that the Arbitrator erred in finding that the appellant had not granted respondent vacation leave during the period that respondent had worked for her. More
