The appellants in the present matter noted their appeals separately. However, they were employed by the same employer and the facts of their cases are similar. On 6th June 2023 an application for consolidation of the matters was made and it was granted. Their matters have therefore been heard together. Each of the appellants was charged with ‘Any serious act, conduct or omission inconsistent with the fulfilment of the express or implied conditions of his/her contract.’ This is a violation of Section 10.4.14 of the respondent’s employment code. Disciplinary proceedings were conducted against each of them. They were separately convicted... More
Applicant entered into a contract of employment with the Respondent on 1 May 1988 as a trainee junior traffic assistant based at Bulawayo airport. He rose through the ranks to the position of traffic Officer which position he held until his suspension in January 2000. On 10 February 2000 Applicant appeared before a disciplinary committee. The outcome of the hearing was only communicated after Applicant had approached the High Court in October 2000 seeking an order that the results be communicated. Respondent faxed to Applicant an unsigned letter dated 17 February 2000 advising that Applicant’s services had been terminated with... More
This appeal was heard and finalised on 20 October 2016 when we delivered an ex tempore judgment. The appellant has requested for the written reasons for our disposition. More
:I dealt with this application on 25 July, 2018. I delivered an ex tempore judgment in which l dismissed it with costs. I indicated that my reasons for the decision would follow. These are they:
The judgment creditor which is the third respondent in casu is a group of former employees of Central Estates (Pvt) Ltd, the judgment debtor. It successfully sued the judgment debtor for arrear salaries or wages which are to the tune of $228 945. It did so through arbitration. More
The appellant is the executive director of the Centre for Research and Development, a registered trust entity stationed at Mutare. Acting on information the police arrested him on 3 June 2010 on allegations of publishing or communicating false statements prejudicial to the state as defined in section 31 (a) (ii) of the Criminal Law [Codification and Reform] Act [Cap 9:23]. The offence is punishable by up to 20 years imprisonment. More
This is an application for quantification of damages. Parties are agreed that the applicant be awarded his backpay and any cash in lieu of leave days due to him. More
The applicant approached the court seeking an order for specific performance which would be occasioned by registration of a Deed of Settlement as an order of this court. The respondent opposed the application on mainly two grounds that the order would be incapable of performance due to financial constraints and secondly that the immovable property referred in the deed of settlement belonged to a 3rd party. More
The applicant seeks an interdict against the respondent in the following:-
“(1) The respondent be and is hereby interdicted from disposing of the applicant’s agricultural equipment in its possession per Annexure “A” to this application by public auction on 23 July 2011, or at any subsequent date except pursuant to a court order obtained from a court of competent jurisdiction.
(2) The respondent shall (bear) the costs of this application”. More
Plaintiff and Defendant were married in terms of the Marriage Act [Chapter 5:11] on 8 September 2007. On 7April 2007 their daughter, Chesla Rufaro Katambarare was born. On 28March 2018, plaintiff issued out summons claiming a decree of divorce and ancillary relief. In seeking the dissolution of the marriage the plaintiff alleged that the marriage relationship between the parties has irretrievably broken down to such an extent that there are no prospects of restoration to a normal marriage relationship in that:-
a) The plaintiff has lost love and affection for the defendant.
b) The parties have been living separate lives... 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 initially quadruple. Appellant then abandoned ground 1, 3 and 4 leaving only ground (2) two for determination. Ground (2) two is quoted thus as follows:
“Both the hearing officer and the appeals Committee failed to note and casted a blind eye on the contradictions between the charge sheet at the loss controllers report and the subsequent apologies by the loss controllers thereof. In the circumstances the hearing officer... More
The matter was set down as an application for quantification of damages. On the set down date both parties appeared. The respondent’s counsel submitted that the respondent was not opposed to the granting of the quantification as prayed for by the applicant. Consequently the court made an order by consent on the quantification matter.
When the parties were stood down the applicant indicated that she had forgotten to request the court to order that the respondent pay for the motor vehicle licence and insurance for the motor vehicle which she was using as part of her benefits more so now... More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award handed down on 1 April 2015 which set aside the dismissal of the respondent from appellant’s employment, and substituted it with a final written warning. More
This is a clear case in which the arbitral award cannot be allowed to stand.
Respondent was employed by appellant as head of department. Following allegations of misconduct, respondent was brought before a Disciplinary Authority which found him guilty and recommended his dismissal. An appeal to the Appeals Officer did not yield the desired results. Respondent approached the labour officer and the matter was subsequently referred to arbitration. The arbitrator found in favour of the respondent and the appellant has appealed to this court. More
