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
On 23 June 2008 the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an insurance agreement. The insurance policy issued to the plaintiff (the insured) was to cover damage to the “whole or part of the property described in the schedule, owned by the insured or for which they are responsible, including alterations by the insured as tenants to the buildings and structures”. Specifically the insurance was against damage from “ fire, lightning or thunderbolt, explosion and such additional perils as are stated in the schedule.” More
At the hearing of this matter both parties were in agreement that the factual issues were not contentious and they submitted a statement of the undisputed facts to the court and mutually agreed on the issues that the court had to determine after hearing argument. More
The appeal is against the decision of the general Engineering Committee made in terms of Section 7 (3) of the Collective bargaining Agreement; Engineering and Iron and Steel Industry Statutory Instrument 301 of 1996. The appeal is opposed.
The factual back ground which is largely common cause is as follows:
The Respondent was employed by the Appellant for nineteen years as a Fitter skilled worker Class 2. The Respondent for the greater part of his service was chronically ill suffering from a kidney ailment. In January, 2009 he was granted indefinite sick leave by his medical practitioner in order to... More
This is an appeal against a determination made by the Designated Agent for the Food and Allied Industries on the 20th of May, 2022. The appeal is opposed. More
This is an application for rescission of default judgment granted on 10 May 2012 in Case No HC 3958/12.
The background to the matter is that the applicant borrowed US$40 000 from the respondent at an interest of 20% per annum in February 2011 and payable by 28 February 2012. The applicant failed to liquidate the debt when it became due resulting in the respondent issuing summons on 21 April 2012 for the US$80 000. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Labour Court handed down on 1 June 2018 dismissing, with costs, an appeal made by the appellant against an arbitral award made by an arbitrator on 18 July 2017. More
This is an application for condonation for late filing of heads of arguments. The brief facts are that an arbitrator ordered that the employer pays its employees an average of $3000-00 each in relation to wages due and payable to the workers.
The arbitrator in June 2014, ordered that the outstanding wages be paid in three months’ time.
The employer had argued that it cannot pay in that time as it would be unduly harsh on a company that is not performing well. They do not deny that the amounts, as ordered by the arbitrator, are due and payable. They... More
This is an application for condonation for late noting of an application for rescission of judgment.
The facts in this matter are largely common cause. Applicant was initially represented by Ms Magogefrom the National Labour Relations Reference Centre. The appeal by the applicant was initially set down for 12 March 2015 before Justice Chidziva. On that date Ms Magoge applied for postponement of the matter to enable her to file heads of argument in the matter. The application was granted and the matter was postponed to 30 March 2015 by consent. Ms Magoge proceeded to file her heads of argument... More
This is an application for the review of an arbitral award which was made on 21 September 2012 in favour of the Respondents (“employees”) against the Applicant (“employer”). Within this review case arose the issue of condonation of the late filing of the heads of argument by the Applicant and also the attendant request to have the bar in that respect lifted. This judgment, therefore, address the two components referred to above. More
This application is an application for rescission of judgment entered against applicants on 18 January 2011. From a reading of the facts of this matter applicants became aware of the judgment in May and June of 2011. Rule 63(1) of the High Court Rules provides; More
The application was placed before the court was one of stay of execution. The basis for seeking stay of execution is stated as being that the applicants have discharged the debt outstanding. A sum of United States dollars, fifty thousand was paid in cash and the remainder of USD$40 000 plus interest was settled through Zimbabwean currency equivalent to this amount. On the other hand, the first respondent contends that payment of the outstanding balance should be in United States Dollars. Therefore, payment of the outstanding amount in any other currency than United States dollars is a non-event. More
This is an application for condonation for late filing of an appeal. The facts in this case are largely common cause. The applicants filed an appeal with this court against the decisions of first and second respondents finding the lecturers guilty of misconduct and imposing various penalties. The facts also show that before the appeal could be heard, the respondents raised a point in limine, alleging that the respondents were incorrectly cited. This court, as per KUDYA J, upheld the point in limine and proceeded to strike the appeal off the roll. The applicants wish to pursue the appeal, hence... More
