AMBALI vs BATA SHOE COMPANY 1999 (1) ZLR 417 (S)
that a dismissed employee has a duty to mitigate his loss by looking for alternative employment. This duty arises immediately upon dismissal.
It is also an established principle of the law that he who asserts bears the onus of proof. In computation of damages it is the claimant who bears the onus to prove his claim by adducing evidence. More
Applicant filed this application as an Urgent Chamber Application seeking the following order:
(1) That the execution of the eviction ordered under SC 138/21 and allowed to continue under HH 83/22 be allowed pending finalization of the appeal under CV SC 63/22.
(2) That the first respondent pays applicant’s costs of suit on the higher scale of legal practitioner and client. More
[ 1] Applicant seeks the rescission of a judgment entered against it in default in terms of rule 49 of the High Court Rules 2021.According to applicant, the parties` present legal troubles are traceable to the second respondent, Edmore Makureya (“Edmore”). Edmore was applicant`s former (presumably the relationship ended) employee who committed a series of misrepresentations in order to procure goods (on credit) from first respondent. Edmore would place orders with first respondent then collect goods under the guise that he was acting for and on behalf of applicant. Edmore covered his tracks by effecting payment for the goods so... More
The plaintiff seeks an order in terms of s 318 (1) of the Companies Act [Chapter 24:03] for the defendant to be declared jointly and severally liable with Foldaway Investments (Pvt) Ltd for all the debts of Foldaway Investment (Pvt) Ltd to the plaintiff. The provision reads as follows.
Responsibility of directors and other persons for fraudulent conduct of business
(1) If at any time it appears that any business of a company was being carried on—
(a) recklessly; or
(b) with gross negligence; or
(c) with intent to defraud any person or for any fraudulent purpose;
the court may,... More
This is an application to compel the respondent to comply with the decision of an adjudicator in terms of Clause W1.4 of the engineering and construction contract between the parties. More
This is an application for leave to appeal against a decision of this court issued on 10 October 2014. The respondent was employed by the applicant as a site quantity surveyor on 17 February 2012. It is alleged that he stopped going to work in March 2013 only to report for work in June 2013 demanding his salary. The appellant contended that the respondent had repudiated his contract by failing to report for work. On 6 June 2013 the respondent’s contract of employment was terminated. More
The Applicant was employed as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) by the first Respondent. Applicant had been employed by the 1st Respondent in February 1985 initially as an Internal Auditor. He later became first Respondent’s Group Chief Accountant, the Group Financial Controller and the General Manager Finance and Investments. In 2004, he was appointed to the position of Chief Executive Officer. He reported directly to the Board of Directors. More
MAKONESE J: This is an application for the late noting of an appeal. The application is opposed by the state on the grounds that there are no reasonable prospects of success. Further and in any event, there are no recognizable grounds of appeal in the application and no reasonable explanation has been advanced for the failure to note the appeal timeously. More
The respondent was employed by the appellant as a machine operator from 19 January 2009 to 28 February 2013, when he was suspended from employment. More
The applicant, an incorporation registered in the United Arab Emirates, has made an approach to this court, on court application, seeking a provisional liquidation order against the respondent, another incorporation cherishing its domicile in Zimbabwe, on the basis that it is unable to pay its debts and that it is just and equitable that the respondent be wound up. The application is made in terms of s 207 of the Companies Act [Cap 24:03] (the Act). More
The appellant brings an appeal against the whole judgment of the Labour Court (the court a quo), which upheld the Appeal Officer’s decision confirming the Hearing Officer’s determination dismissing the appellant from employment. More
On 23 July, 2015, the applicants filed a notice of appeal to the Constitutional Court against a judgment of the Supreme Court dismissing their appeal. This is an application for the appeal to be set down for hearing on an urgent basis. More
This is an appeal against the decision of an appeals officer. It is in terms of the workplace code of conduct. The appellant was charged of “Failure to fulfill the expressed or implied conditions of the contract of employment or any breach of the employment contract” (section 15.9.1 of the Old Mutual Employment Code of Conduct) Clause 8 of specific contract of employment read:
“The employee will perform his/her duties in the best interests of Old Mutual and will refrain from any action which may in any manner harm the good name and reputation of Old Mutual or which may... More
This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. This Court allowed an appeal by the Respondent against a decision by an arbitrator in favour of the Applicants.
Applicants were employed by BP Shell as supply and logistics Managers respectively. Around 20 October 2010 BP Shell sold its services as a going concern to Respondent. A transfer of undertaking was done in terms of Section 16 of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. On 21 November 2011 Respondent offered Applicants a voluntary retrenchment package which was declined. On 15 December 2011 Respondent served Applicants with a compulsory notice... More
The order sought in this matter is that First Defendant’s Special Plea be and is hereby upheld and that the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed with costs on a legal practitioner and client scale.
In the main action, Plaintiff claimed the eviction of First Defendant and all those claiming occupation through him from stand number 905 of Newark of Hilton of Subdivision A, Waterfalls, Harare. He also claimed damages in the sum of USD 2500.00 for future demolition and removal of structures constructed by First Defendant on the property. More
