This is an application made under the mandament van spolie for an order for eviction of the respondents and all those acting under or throughthem from Stand No. 19034 Parkridge, Kuwadzana Township Harare. Further that, an urgent interdict is also made interdicting respondents from interfering with the applicant’s activities on the said stand and ancillary relief as provided in the Draft Order. The applicants aver that the application was necessitated by respondents who forcibly took possession of the stand from second applicant. More
This appeal proceeded in terms of Rule 22 of this Court’s Rules Statutory Instrument 59 of 2006 after the Court found that Respondent had not shown good cause why he did not file his response to the appeal as required in Rule 15.
This is an appeal against an arbitral award issued against Appellant wherein it was ordered to reinstate Respondent with effect from 7th December, 2013 or pay him damages if reinstatement was no longer possible. More
This was an application for rescission of judgment granted by this Honourable Court on 28 September 2016.
This court dismissed this application and the following are the reasons why the application was dismissed with costs. More
This is an appeal from an arbitral award. The arbitrator ordered that the respondent be reinstated without loss of salary and benefits or payment of damages in the alternative. More
The respondent was employed by the appellant. Allegations of misconduct were raised against him, he was charged and found guilty and dismissed.
After his dismissal, a dispute arose as to the terminal benefits he was entitled to. The matter was referred for arbitration and the arbitrator found that gratuity was payable as part of his terminal benefits. This aggrieved the appellant who then brought these current appeal proceedings. More
This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The application is at the instance of the applicant Municipality in a matter where respondent employees successfully sought reinstatement relief from a labour officer in a labour dispute pitting them and the Municipality. After deliberations were made on the Labour dispute the labour officer ruled that the employees had lost their jobs irregularly. In the result he reinstated them without loss of salary and benefits. In the alternate he ordered the Municipality to pay the employees damages in lieu of reinstatement. More
On the 17th July 2023 at Harare Arbitrator G. Masukume issued an award. He ordered appellant (employer) to pay respondent (employee) an amount of US$1,215,328.67 as outstanding salaries and benefits. The employer appealed the award to this Court whereupon the employee filed a counter appeal. The appeals were made in terms of section 92D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 hereafter called the Act. More
At the onset of oral argument it was agreed that this Court deals with the appeal and cross- appeal separately. The Court then proceeded to deal with the appeal.
Respondent raised a point in limine to the effect that there was no valid appeal before the Court. Firstly because appellant’s grounds of appeal are based on quantification of salaries and benefits together with damages consequent upon the unlawful dismissal of an employee. Appellant stated that he was not dismissed by respondent. The Labour Court in 2 judgments has affirmed he is still employed by respondent. Therefore the grounds of appeal... More
This is an appeal by the Appellant (the employer) against an arbitral award.
The background to this matter is that the Respondent stopped coming to work in October 2008. He alleges that he was ill. He only recovered in February 2009 and that is when he reported for duty. More
On the 24th June, 2014 Applicant applied to the Ministry of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare for the issuance of a Show Cause Order seeking that pending the issuance of a disposal order, the threatened collective job action be terminated.
The parties appeared before a Labour Officer who after hearing submissions recommended to the Minister that he issues a Show Cause Order. More
This Court issued judgment referenced LCH 148/24 on 03 April 2024.Whereas it has come to the Court’s attention that the judgment contained a patent error in its body in the penultimate paragraph on page 4. More
At the onset of oral argument respondent raised a point in limine. Appellant opposed the same. The point is succinctly set out in respondent’s heads of argument thus,
“1. It is respectfully submitted that the appeal is not properly before this honourable court as there is no right of appeal against a draft ruling of a labour officer made in terms of section 16 of the Labour Amendment Act, 2015.” More
The applicant municipality seeks an order compelling the respondent to release its plant, machinery and equipment which it avers is unlawfully in the custody of the respondents. More
The applicant seeks an order of rei vindicatio. It seeks recovery of its property namely- motor vehicle, a Toyota Hilux Double Cab Registration Number AAE 7098, HP 450 laptop, Samsung Galaxy S5 and a Samsung tablet 4 presently in the possession of the respondent without the applicant’s consent. More
