The applicant seeks an order, in terms of s 3 of the Deceased Persons Family Maintenance Act [Cap 6:03] (“the Act”) that Stand 140 Upper East Road be awarded to the minor child Beatrice Maloya (“Beatrice”). More
The parties were married in terms of the Marriage Act, [Chapter 5:11] on 24 December, 2005. Two minor children namely Donnel Munesu Mandienga, born on 1 June 2006 and Diana Mutsawashe Mandienga born on 5 December, 2009, were born out of the marriage. The plaintiff issued summons on 16 July, 2013 claiming a decree of divorce and ancillary relief on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. More
This is an application for the reinstatement of a matter, which had initially been struck off the Roll. On 6 February 2019, the court struck off the Roll the applicant’s application for condonation by consent of the parties on the basis that the matter was improperly before the court. More
This was an urgent chamber application for an interdict. I heard it on 14 February 2017 and reserved judgment. Evidently the application was prepared without regard to the elementary requirements for an interlocutory interdict. Even the argument on urgency was tenuous. More
On 18 November 2021, the appellant’s appeal against eviction from property known as Stand No. 11740A Harare Road, Mbare was dismissed. The judgment was given ex tempo. The appellant has appealed to the Supreme Court against the dismissal of his appeal and has requested the full reasons for dismissal in writing. More
MABHIKWA J: The applicant filed an application for the review of the 2nd respondent’s decision made on 23 August 2019 in determining a mining dispute between the applicant and the 3rd respondent. The grounds for review were as follows;
1. The procedure used by the 2nd respondent in determining the dispute using a Global Positioning System (GPS) survey was grossly irregular to the extent that it contravenes the principles and procedures laid out in the Mines and Minerals Act (Chapter 21:08).
2. The decision of the 2nd respondent in ordering thatShebeen King Mine registration 6734 must “revert to its docket... More
Appellant appealed to this Court against his dismissal from employment by Respondent. The appeal is provided for by Section 92D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 as read with Rule 19 of the Labour Court Rules S.I. 150 of 2017. Respondent opposed the appeal. More
On 12th April2024 this Court ordered respondent to reinstate applicant or pay himdamages in lieu of reinstatement. The parties failed to agree on the implementation of the order. Then on 11th November 2024 applicant filed the present application for the quantification of his damages in lieu of reinstatement. The respondent opposed the application. More
Appellant employee filed an appeal against his dismissal from employment by the respondent employer following allegations of misconduct. The employer is opposed to the grant of appellate relief as it is its view that appellant does not have a good case on appeal. When parties appeared before the court the employer took the point that the appeal grounds 1 to 6 were review grounds as they sought to interrogate the process leading to the guilty verdict and dismissal penalty so these should have been brought up in an application for review as opposed to an appeal. In reaction to the... More
The applicant submitted that the notice of appeal is served together with the notice of response. In accordance with Rule 15 (2) of the Labour Court Rules the Respondent was suppose to respond within thirty (30) days. The appeal was filed on 12 September 2011 and the Respondent only responded on the 18th of February 2014. More
Appellant was employed as a Provincial Magistrate stationed at Mutare. During a routine check of the Court Record Book it was discovered that sentences imposed by Appellant were suspiciously, the same in different matters that he had handled. The Head of the station decided to refer these cases for review. In a review judgment, UCHENA J. made comments about the sentences and referred the matter to the Chief Magistrate. This resulted in Appellant being charged. The Disciplinary Committee recommended that Appellant be fined the sum of USD 300.00 and his rank be reduced to that of Magistrate. The Disciplinary Authority... More
. The plaintiff and the defendant started staying together in the manner of husband and wife in 1998 under an unregistered customary law union. On the 14th June 2001, their marriage was solemnised in terms of the Marriage Act [Chapter 5:11].
Their marriage was blessed with two children of whom one is now an adult whilst the other is still a minor. More
The Appellants are employed of by the Respondent in various capacities. They also acted in certain higher positions for periods in excess of 2 years (since 20 March 2009). They were aggrieved by acting in those periods and felt that the Respondent was committing an unfair labour practice by not substantively appointing them to posts in which they were acting. The matter was referred for conciliation. They failed to settle. A certificate of no settlement was issued and the matter was referred to arbitration. More
The appellant was in default despite the fact that summons was served on his designated representatives, the Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions (“ZFTU”). Respondent’s Counsel implored the court to proceed to hear the matter on the merits. The court granted the request.
The brief facts of the matter are that the appellant was employed by the respondent as a Project Manager. He is alleged to have misused the motor vehicle allocated to him by the respondent. He was charged and found guilty leading to his dismissal. The matter ended up in arbitration and the arbitrator upheld his dismissal. The appellant... More
