On 8 March 2011 I dismissed this application on the ground that it was not properly before the court.
The legal practitioners for the second to fifth respondents has since written requesting for reasons for my ruling. These are they:
On 8 September 2010 the applicants (i.e. 59 Beneficiaries of Valley Lane Housing Scheme) filed an application seeking the following relief:
“IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The first respondent shall forthwith, that is to say, within two hours of service of this order upon him or his agents, employees or invitees restore possession and control of the fifty nine (59)... More
The applicant seeks leave to appeal. This is in respect of a composite judgment of this court and the Fiscal Appeals Court on 22 April 2021 under the reference no HH 197-21, per NDOU AJ. That judgment dismissed some appeals by the applicant. The appeals had been noted against certain decisions by the respondent in respect of some objections by the applicant over the tax assessments on it for the period 2011 to 2016.
[2] The dispute centred on the allowable deductibles over the rental income earned by the applicant from a certain immovable property that she had inherited from... More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award handed down by Honourable J. Ndomene on 24 January 2014. The arbitral award upheld the dismissal of the appellants for misconduct, the misconduct being engagement in an unlawful collective job action.
A perusal of the arbitral award shows that the arbitrator found all the claimants that appeared before him guilty of misconduct. He however, differentiated the penalties on the basis of degree of participations in the unlawful job action. For those whose participation involved elements of wilful disobedience and physical assault on management, a penalty of dismissal was imposed. For those who... More
The appellant was employed by the respondent as a teacher at Madziwa Mine Secondary School. Following allegations of improper association with two female students, appellant was charged in terms of paragraphs 4, 7 and 24 of schedule (1) of the Public Service Regulations, Statutory Instrument 1 of 2000. Appellant was found liable for improper association with one of the students and in respect of the second student he was found not liable. Appellant was discharged from service. Appellant then noted an appeal to this court. I will address the student as the complainant for convenience. More
The facts which gave rise to the dispute between the parties are common cause and these are that:
The appellant was employed by Zimbabwe National Water Authority (ZINWA) as a senior clerical officer Grade 11.
She stopped reporting for duty in May 2008 and the employer Zinwa stopped paying her salary.
In 2009 there was a government directive that water management functions be re-transferred to local authorities with effect from 1 February 2009.At that time Zinwaemployees were re-transferred to the respondent, City of Harare.
In June 2010 the appellant wrote a letter to the respondent’s Human Resources Manager, to the... More
HOVE J:
The Appellant alleges that he was employed in 2002 as an Investigation Officer. In 2005 he was moved to Operations were he was promoted to Area Controller doing managerial duties. More
The appeal was noted against the decision of the Respondent National Hearing Committee which on the 28th February 2011 upheld the decision of the Regional Hearing Committee and confirmed the termination of Appellant’s contract of employment with effect from 11th November, 2010.
The background facts are as follows;
The Appellant was employed by the Respondent as a Technician Assistant in its Operations and Engineering Report – based at Chatsworth Exchange. Appellant was suspended without pay on the 26th October 2010 on allegations that he and two others had removed an air conditioner (serial number provided) from Chatsworth Exchange to a... More
These are two separate applications which are substantially similar, in that they raise the same issues and seek the same kind of relief against the same respondent church. More
These are two separate appeals against the same decision of the High Court (“the court a quo”) in an interpleader application, wherein the court a quo dismissed the two appellants’ claims to movable properties attached by the first respondent in each appeal (hereinafter referred to as “the Sheriff”) in execution of a judgment debt. The two appeals were consolidated and heard as one appeal. For the sake of convenience, the Court will refer to the appellant in the first appeal as “the first appellant” and the appellant in the second appeal as “the second appellant”. After hearing submissions by counsel,... More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court sitting at Harare dated 10 July2019 in favour of the respondent. The court a quo in this case granted an interdict against the first and second appellants ordering them to share the money collected between 2014 and 2018 in accordance with the partnership agreement and stopping them from interfering with the management of stands 147 and 151 Mbuya Nehanda Street Harare. More
The appeal has been lodged against the determination by Respondent’s Appeals Committee handed down on 20 October, 2009 wherein the Appeals Committee confirmed the findings and penalty of dismissal imposed by the Disciplinary Committee. More
The applicant is a company duly incorporated in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. It carries on the business of electrical engineering. The first respondent was its employee. He was its Chief Executive Officer. He tendered his letter of resignation on 8 February 2010. The second respondent is the first respondent’s company duly registered in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. It like the applicant carries on the business of electrical engineering. More
This is an appeal against the quantification proceedings held before the Honourable Mlilwana. The brief facts are that the respondent was employed by the appellant. Following disagreements at the workplace, the matter finally ended in arbitration. The arbitrator found in favour of respondent and ordered her reinstatement. The respondent later approached the arbitrator for quantification in lieu of reinstatement. The parties appeared before the arbitrator and the arbitrator quantified the damages in lieu of reinstatement in the sum of $4 455-00. The appellant is dissatisfied with this decision and has approached this Court for relief. More
