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
This is an appeal againstthe appeals committee’s decision to uphold the decision to find the appellant guilty of two charges in violation of section 4 (b) and 4 (f) of Statutory Instrument 15 of 2006, that is willful disobedience to a lawful order and gross incompetence or inefficiency in the performance of his work. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Designated Authority (DA Mutezo) who upheld the guilty verdict and dismissal penalty meted out on appellant employee following allegations of gross incompetency or inefficiency in the performance of his duties in contravention of the respondent code of conduct. More
Appellant was employed by respondent as a Club Steward. On
2 October 2013, appellant was apprehended carrying some items in his bag by security personnel which allegedly belonged to respondent. Appellant was subsequently suspended and brought before a Hearing Committee. The Committee recommended his dismissal. Appellant approached the Ministry of Labour which office referred the matter to compulsory arbitration. The arbitrator found in favour of respondent. More
This is an urgent chamber application seeking aninterim order in the following terms
"1. Applicant be and is hereby restored in House No. 493 Masvingo Cooperative Union, Jerera.
2. The second Respondent be and is hereby ordered to restore Applicant and all his belongings back into House No. 493 Masvingo Cooperative Union, Jerera."
The application is opposed by the first respondent. More
