At the end of hearing argument for both parties, the Court dismissed the application with costs on the legal practitioner and client scale. It was indicated that reasons for the decision would follow in due course. More
Appellant appealed to this Court against her dismissal from employment by Respondent. She was charged with seven (7) counts of misconduct. These were violations of Group D – Most serious offences – category 25. She was acquitted of four of the counts but found guilty on 3 of the counts.Her ground of appeals were three- fold as follows,
“1. The Grievances and Disciplinary Committee erred and misdirected itself in finding Appellant guilty of Count 1 of the charges, as the duties she is charged with do not fall into duties assigned either expressly or tacitly.
2. The Grievances and Disciplinary... More
This matter relates to two appeals. As both records were placed before us we decided to determine both appeals together. The first appeal is an appeal against the magistrates Court sitting at Chinhoyi dated 26 April 2005. In this case the court made an order for the eviction of the appellant from house 255 Kuwadzana Banket, payment of rent in the sum of Z$20 000 per month from date 8 July 2003 and costs of suit. Following the noting of an appeal by the appellant against this judgment, the respondent applied for and was granted leave to execute the order... More
This was supposed to be an application for condonationof late noting of appeal. The applicant is represented but has not filed Heads of Argument. The Rules require a party who is represented to file Heads of Argument (Rule 19). No reasonable explanation has been proffered. The legal practitioners of record have sent a correspondent to appear.(Mr Muhlekiwa of Mahuni&Mutatu Attorneys at Law). Mr Laita is said to be attending to a matter at Marondera Magistrates’ Court. There is no proof that this is so. Further even if this was so the Labour Court is superior to the Magistrates’ Court and... More
The applicant approached this court seeking registration of a Designated Agent ruling in terms of s 128 (1) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] for enforcement purposes. More
On the 28th October, 2015 I directed that the parties compile and file a full and proper record after which I would then consider whether to determine the matter on the record or direct that a court hearing be held.
The parties duly complied with the directive and having gone through the record, I am of the view that I can determine the appeal on the record. Section 89 (2)(a)(1) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] refers.
Appellant was dismissed from Respondent’s employ after having been found guilty of six out of eight counts of fraud. He appealed through the... More
This is an appeal against the judgement of the High Court dismissing an application for the rescission of a default judgment granted in favour of the first respondent against the second respondent in Case No. HC 9554/16. The application was brought in terms of r 449(1)(a) of the High Court Rules 1971. The applicant in that matter sought the rescission of the default judgement as well as his joinder in the main proceedings. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Magistrates Court, sitting at Harare on the 11th of May 2007, dismissing the appellant’s application for bail. The appellant was arrested two days before on a charge of contravening section 3 of the Gold Trade Act [Chapter 21:03], viz. for unlawfully possessing gold without a licence or permit. The penalty prescribed for the offence, as recently amended, is a mandatory prison term of 5 to 10 years in the absence of special circumstances. More
The applicant, a former constable in the Zimbabwe Republic Police, was charged with and convicted of contravening paragraph 11 of the Schedule to the Police Act as read with sections 29 and 34 of the same. He was sentenced to 14 days imprisonment and was subsequently discharged from the police service. More
DUBE-BANDA J:
[1] This is an application for, inter alia, declaratory orders and consequential relief in the following terms:
i. It is hereby ordered and declared that the letter written by Assistant Commissioner R.M Basera on the 14th of February 2019 and date stamped on the 18th of February 2019 do not constitute reasons for the decision of the first respondent in his capacity as the appellant authority in terms of the Police Act.
ii. It is accordingly held that the first respondent is in contempt of the order of this court under HC 42/18 granted on the 28th of... More
The applicants filed an application for a declaratory order whose draft reads as follows-
“Whereupon after reading documents filed of record and hearing counsel;
It Is Ordered That
1. The 1st and 2nd Respondents’ failure to furnish the Applicants with reasons for their decisions is unlawful and wrongful.
2. The Applicants’ discharge from the Police service is accordingly set aside.
3. The Respondents are ordered to reinstate the Applicants into the Police service forthwith.
4. The Respondents are ordered to pay costs of suit on a punitive scale More
Applicant is an ex-member of the Zimbabwe Republic Police, (ZRP). He was attested into the Police Service on 2 February 2011. He was discharged from service by 1st respondent on 10 January 2017. He appealed that decision to the 2nd respondent. 2nd respondent dismissed the appeal on 25 October 2017. It is that decision which is the subject of this application for review. The grounds for review are set out ex-facie the application. More
The applicant was discharged from the Zimbabwe Republic Police on 30 December 2014 by the second respondent, the Commissioner General of Police in terms of the Police Act [Chapter 11:10] after having been declared a deserter. More
The applicant approached this court seeking a declarator in the following terms:
That,
1. The discharge of the applicant from the Zimbabwe Republic Police by the first and second respondents be and is hereby declared unlawful and wrongful.
2. The first and second respondents are ordered to reinstate the applicant with full benefits from the date of discharge to the date of reinstatement.
3. The respondents are ordered to pay costs of suit. More
