This is an application for condonation of late application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court combined with an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
On 25 October 2013 this Court granted an application for the granting of the appeal in terms of Rule 19 (3) (a) of S.I. 59/06 as respondent in that matter (now applicant) had not filed heads of argument as required by the same rules. In terms of Rule 36 of S.I. 59/06, a party desiring to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against any decision of this court must... More
The respondent is employed by the appellant as a general worker. Respondent raised grievances that she should have been promoted to a public convenience cleaner, that she had not been paid acting allowances when she acted as a public convenience cleaner and that she was entitled to a noxious substance allowance. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award which reversed a decision of the disciplinary committee which had found the respondent guilty of misconduct and dismissed him from employment.
The respondent was employed by the appellant as a charge hand. In October 2006 he was appointed to be acting superintendent. In 2008 he then performed the duties of assistant workshop manager in an acting capacity. More
This is an application for upliftment of the automatic bar operating against the applicant after failing to file heads of argument timeously. It is opposed. It was also noted that the applicant’s legal practitioners did not file an assumption agency. They should have done so as required by the rules. The rules are clear on this and it is a mandatory requirement. Rule 18 of the Rules of this court, Statutory Instrument 59 of 2006 provides that: ‘’ (1) If a party is represented by a legal practitioner, the legal practitioner shall file a written notice of assumption of agency... More
The applicant is applying for leave to appeal against the judgment of this court that was handed down on 31 January 2020.
The applicant had retired the Respondent at the age of 60 years instead of 65 years. Retirement at the age of 60 years was provided for in the Pension Fund. Retirement at the age of 65 years was provided for in the contract of employment.
This court found that the applicant had no lawful right to reduce the retirement age to 60 years. More
The brief history of the matter is that respondents are employed by applicantas petrol men (Grade 11) and stationed at various sections. The respondents raised a grievance of unfair grading in terms of the grievance handling procedure to the immediate supervisor.
The supervisor ruled in favour of the applicants. The respondents then took up the matter to the Public Safety Director who also found in favour of the applicant. The matter was then referred to the Employment Council for Harare Municipal Undertaking for conciliation. A certificate of no settlement was signed at conciliation. The applicant also ruled that respondents were... More
On 4th May 2010 this Court made a default order in favour of the Respondents. The order directed Applicant to reinstate Respondents or alternatively pay them damages in lieu of reinstatement. The order was made by reason of Applicant’s default.
On 18th March 2011 the Court granted Applicant leave to file a belated application for rescission of the earlier order. On 19th May 2011 Applicant filed the application for rescission. In matters of this nature an Applicant is required
to show good cause in order to obtain relief. The main pertinent factors are the explanation for the default and the... More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award which was made in favour of the Respondents in a matter where the Respondents, the then claimants alleged that they were performing duties above their grades and had not received payments for that or alternatively had not been promoted to the grades for which they performed the duties.
The background to the matter is that the Respondents who are in the Appellant’s employ in various capacities approached the Arbitrator on the basis that between 2000 and 2009 when the country faced an acute brain drain they were made to perform duties for... More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award issued by Honourable N. Shumba on 13th March 2014. The arbitral award upheld the Respondents’ claim of unfair labour practice. The award also ordered the Appellant to evaluate the job of Principal Accountant. More
This is an appeal against the decision of an arbitrator. The facts in this matter are largely common cause. Respondent was employed by appellant in the Highways and Works Department. Following his absence from duty, respondent was charged with absenteeism from work. He was brought before a Disciplinary Committee which convicted him and recommended his dismissal. The matter ended up in arbitration and the arbitrator found in favour of the respondent. Appellant has appealed to this court. More
The judgment in this matter was meant to have been handed down latest by the first term of 2013. However when the court sat down to consider the papers filed of record and the oral submissions by the parties on 29 November 2012 it became apparent that there was need to recall the lawyers representing both parties to shed light on the issues which exercised the mind of the court when it was preparing for the judgment. Consequently the court invited the said lawyers on the 21 March 2013. More
This is an appeal against the arbitrator’s award in which it was held that the Appellant council had committed an unfair labour practice against the Respondents and was thus ordered to correct the same.
The facts of the case are that in 2007 the Appellant came up with a new organogram meant to change the grading and designations of its employees. Same was approved by a resolution of the full Council and was partially implement by the re-designation of some of its employees.
The Respondents who were in Appellant’s employ as patrol persons were meant to be branded sergeants in... More
Respondent was employed by the Appellant in the Waste Management Department. It is alleged that Respondent absented herself from duty and she was brought before a Disciplinary Committee which sanctioned her dismissal. Respondent approached the Employment Council in 2011 on appeal but this was not resolved. The matter was referred to arbitration and the Arbitrator found in favour of Respondent. Appellant is dissatisfied with the decision of the Arbitrator and has appealed to this Court. More
This is an appeal against an Arbitral Award wherein it was ordered that Respondent be reinstated to his original position as the decision to dismiss him was null and void as it was made outside the prescribed time frames. More
This an appeal against the decision of Honourable Arbitrator Mudiwa dated 17th June 2019 which was couched as follows;
“Wherefore after carefully analysing the relevant facts and law, I make the following awards,
(i) The Disciplinary Committee was properly constituted.
(ii) The charges against the claimant were preferred outside the prescribed time.
(iii) The department representative did not act improperly when he led evidence at the hearing which evidence had the effect of pre-emptying the matter or causing bias. The dismissal of the claimant was not fair in the circumstances.
(iv) The respondent is hereby ordered to reinstate the claimant.... More
