: The plaintiff and the defendant were married on 24 May 2002 and on 15 April 2016 the plaintiff filed summons for divorce and other ancillary relief against the defendant.
During the course of their marriage the parties were blessed with two children who are still minors. They acquired movable and immovable property. Sometime in March 2017 after the commencement of these proceedings the plaintiff who was employed and later retrenched by the National Social Security Authority (NSSA) got his retrenchment package.
At the per-trial conference held on 26 March 2018 the parties made concessions and agreed that their marriage... More
On the 8th January, 2014 Applicant filed an application for condonation of late noting of an appeal against an arbitral award. The award to be appealed against was issued on the 19th October, 2012. More
By an order dated 8 March 2018, and with the consent of the parties, this Court referred to the Constitutional Court in terms of s 175(4) of the Constitution, what it perceived to be a constitutional question arising in the appeal. By its order dated 27 June 2018, the Constitutional Court in turn struck the referral off its roll, with an appropriate order of costs. It was the view of the Constitutional Court that the appeal did not raise any constitutional matter, and in particular, that an interpretation of s 72 of the Constitution, which had been part of the... More
The factual background is largely common cause. Sometime in June 2013 the applicant (Clovgate) and second respondent (ZPC) entered into a contract to carry out lift shaft structural refurbishment of the Kariba Power Station. They agreed on a contract price. Clovgate claimed the contract was varied resulting in it incurring extra expenses used in the refurbishment works. ZPC disputed this position which resulted in a dispute between the parties. The parties then appeared before the 1st respondent for arbitration. More
This matter had been set down for the 24 May 2013. Both parties were informed that matter was postponed to a date to be informed by the Registrar. The Registrar called and advised both legal practitioners that the matter had been set down for hearing on 31 May 2013. Applicant is therefore in wilful default. More
The applicant seeks leave to execute the judgment of this court per TAGU J delivered on 13 January 2021 under HC 1897/16 (judgment No. HH 26/21). The relief sought is aptly set out in the draft order as follows:
“WHEREUPON after reading documents filed of record and hearing counsel it is ordered that:
1. That the Applicant be and is hereby granted leave to execute judgment No. HH 26/21 granted by this court under case HC 1897/16 on 13th January 2021.
2. That the Applicant furnish security to the satisfaction of the Registrar.
3. That in the event of an... More
At the commencement of this trial the parties agreed that this matter be dealt with as a special case in terms of Order 29, Rule 199 of the High Court Rules, 1971. The facts in relation to the special case are contained in the following document signed by both parties on the 25th November 2020. More
The respondent was the Managing Director of the appellant company until 21 August 2014 when he was suspended from duty. The issue before the court relates to a pay increase that was awarded but not paid to respondent before his suspension. More
At the hearing of this appeal I heard submissions on the points in limine and reserved my ruling. This is it.
The appellant filed its appeal on 28 August 2015 against an arbitral award. The 2nd respondent who was immediately thereafter served with the notice of appeal, lodged its notice of response on 14 September 2015. The first respondent only filed its notice of response on 23 September 2015. Both notices of response were served on the appellant soon after filing with the Labour Court. More
This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against a decision of this court dismissing the appeal by the applicant. The application is made in terms of section 92 F (2) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] (the Act) as read with Rule 36 of the Labour Court Rules (the rules) Statutory Instrument 59/2006. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Designated Agent NEC Motor Industry where he ordered the reinstatement of the respondent employee in a labour dispute pitting him and the appellant employer. More
The plaintiff instituted summons against the defendant for;
a) payment of $101 781-60 being the value of diesel stolen and misappropriated by the
defendant during his employment with the defendant More
The respondents are former employees of the applicant. They were retrenched in 2012. They were paid their pensions in terms of s11 of the Public Service (Pension) Regulations, Statutory Instrument 21A of 2001 (the Regulations). More
This exception has been filed by the third defendant in a matter in which it purports to be sued by the plaintiff (CMED) as one of the material players in the non-delivery of 3 million litres of diesel that was due to it from the first defendant, FIRST OIL. The third defendants argues that the plaintiff’s summons do not disclose a cause of action in terms of order 2 Rule 11 (C) which requires a true and concise statement of the nature, extent and grounds of the cause of action and of the relief and remedies sought in the action.... More
