This is a Court Application for leave to execute pending appeal where the Applicant is praying for the following relief:
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The application for Execution of the Order under HC 40/20 dated 23 July 2020 pending the determination of SC 333/20 is hereby granted.
2. The Fourth Respondent is granted leave to give effect to the Writ of Delivery of Movables lodged on 27 July 2020 under case HC 40/20.
3. During the pendency of SC 333/20 the Applicant is temporarily interdicted from disposing of Cat Caterpillar Dump Truck 769C.
4. The First and Second Respondents... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the respondent’s Appeals Officer that was delivered on 31 October 2014. The Appeals Officer upheld the decision of the hearing committee to dismiss the appellant for the alleged misconduct.
The brief history of the matter is that
- Appellant was employed by the respondent as an auto electrician with effect from 1 April 2012.
- On 26 September 2014 he was charged for an act of misconduct in terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement for the Motor Industry Code of Conduct for “any act or omission inconsistent with the fulfilment of the... More
The plaintiff instituted anactiorei vindicatioaction and consequential relief in the form of holding over damages initially against the first and second defendants. The original summons and declaration were issued on 28 October 2016. By way of an amendment to the summons and declaration issued on 31 October 2018, the third defendant was added as a party to the proceedings in his capacity as the Executor Dative to the estate of the Late Edmore Tererai Chitiyo (the late Chitiyo). More
Appellant appealed to this Court against his dismissal from employment by Respondent. The appeal was made in terms of Section 92D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01. The grounds of appeal were four-fold as follows,
“1a. The Respondent erred in proceeding to entertain a dismissal by the Designated Officer without proper hearing.
b.The Appellant was at no point invited for the hearing.
c.There are no records of proceedings on the whole process.
d.The decision of the Respondent to dismiss the Applicant is a nullity at law.
e.The code was not followed properly by the Respondent.
2.The aggrieved party first approached... More
1. This is an application for bail pending appeal against both conviction and sentence.
2. On 29 September 2022 the applicant was convicted on a charge of criminal abuse of duty as a public officer as defined in s 174(1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:28]. He was sentenced to 30 months imprisonment of which 6 months were suspended for 5 years on the usual conditions of good behaviour.
3. The Court found that during the period extending from November 2018 to September 2019 and at Chitungwiza Municipality the appellant, a Works Manager, acted contrary to... More
1. This is an appeal against both conviction and sentence.
2. It is pursuant to the appellant’s conviction on a charge of criminal abuse of duty as a public officer as defined in s 174(1) of the (Criminal Law (Codification and Reform ) Act [Chapter 9:28] and the sentence of thirty months imprisonment of which six months were suspended on the condition of good behaviour.
3. The trial court found that the appellant, an Acting Works Manager in the employ of Chitungwiza Municipality, acted contrary to or inconsistent with his duty by unlawfully approving a site plan in favour of... More
This appeal has been decided on the record in terms of Section 89 2(a)(i) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01].
Appellant was in Respondent’s employ as a gang leader before his dismissal on allegations of theft of gold ore. More
On the 10th of June 2011 Appellant was suspended from duty on the ground that he had fraudulently generated three (3) journals namely:-
- Morgan Zintec for $406.00
- Chitungwiza Hospital for $459.95
- Dudzai Primary School for $550.01
without supporting documentation.
This was an act of misconduct in terms of Section 20 of Respondent’s Code of Conduct S.I. 148 of 2009 the penalty of which is a dismissal for a first breach.
For committing the above act of misconduct (fraud) Appellant was found guilty by the Disciplinary Committee and was dismissed from Respondent’s employment. He noted appeals to the... More
The defendants (who are the excipients in this matter) have excepted to the plaintiff’s (who is respondent) declaration and I have, to decide whether that exception has merit or not. More
This is a court application for rescission of judgment. The applicants seek to have the default judgment granted by MUSITHU J on 28 June 2023 under case number HC 2656/23 set aside. The order sought as set out in the draft order speaks to this as follows:
“1. The judgment granted by this Honourable court under case No. Hc 2656/23 on 28 June 2023 be and is hereby rescinded.
2. The matter shall proceed in terms of the Rules of this court.
3. No order as to costs”. More
At the hearing of the matter, the Respondent raised points in limine which are the subject of this judgment. The Applicant approached this court seeking a declaratory order in terms of s14 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7.06] and the eviction of the Respondent. More
On the 7th October 2005 Arbitrator Chavura issued an award reinstating Applicant without loss of pay and benefits.
Respondent appealed to this Court and on the 31st May 2007 an order by consent was issued on the following terms-
- that Respondent reinstates Applicant pending early retirement with full benefits,
- that Applicant be on leave pending finalization of his packages/emoluments
- that there be no order as to costs. More
