Counsel for the applicant was of the view that the extent of delay was eight days. On the other hand it was submitted for the respondent there was a delay of thirty five days. It is not in dispute that the applicant was advised to comply with practice directive 1 of 2014 by 4 March 2014. This is the date upon which it was expected that the applicant if still interested in the prosecution of the matter must have paid the sheriff’s fees for service. Applicant did not pay. I agree with the respondent the dies inducie must be counted... More
Respondent worked for appellant as a maintenance clerk. A copy of the employment contract is filed of record. It is a fixed term contract running from 31 January 2013 to 30 April 2013. According to appellant, respondent was off sick as from 20 February 2013. At the end of his treatment respondent did not present himself for work. He merely inquired about his leave pay. He did not inquire about his salary for May 2013 until he made a report some 12 months later alleging unfair dismissal. Respondent’s case was that his contract was not terminated. He further submitted that... More
At the onset of the proceedings Counsel for Respondent challenged the right of Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Union (ZFTU) in representing Applicants in this matter. Applicants are not members of ZFTU and as such ZFTU has no rights to file papers and argue matter on behalf of Applicants. More
This is an application for leave to appeal against my judgment of 23 January instant. The purported grounds of appeal are as follows;
1) That the court a quo erred in concluding that the Applicant was not a registered trade union when such union is registered.
2) That the court a quo erred in concluding that an unregistered trade union cannot appoint an agent union when section 31(1)(b) of the Labour Act authorizes such appointments.
3) That the court a quo erred in ordering ZFTU to pay costs. More
The application is for a review of the disciplinary proceedings as convened by the Respondent against the Applicant. The application is premised on Section 92 EE (1) (c) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. The application is opposed. More
