This is an application for the confirmation of a ruling by a labour officer in terms of section 93 (5) of the Labour Act as amended. The facts giving rise to this application are that the 2nd respondent (“the employee”) approached a labour officer after conciliation had failed in a matter where she claimed that the first respondent (the employer) had terminated her employment irregularly on notice. After hearing both parties on the matter the applicant (labour officer) ruled that indeed the employee’s employment had been terminated irregularly. In the result she ordered that the employee be reinstated to her... More
This is an application for the confirmation of a draft ruling made by the applicant in relation to a dispute between the 1st and 2nd respondents who are the substantive parties in this matter.
Background
The 1st respondent employed the 2nd respondent on a fixed term contract basis as the head of its finance and administration. More
On the 25th April 2023 at Harare, applicant in his capacity as a Labour Officer, issued a ruling. He ordered 1st respondent (employer) to pay 2nd respondent (employee) an amount of US12,000-00 as damages for unlawful termination of employment. Apparently, the employer did not comply with the ruling. Then applicant applied to this Court for the confirmation of his ruling in terms of section 93(5a) of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 hereafter called the Act. More
This is an application for confirmation of a draft ruling made by a Labour Officer in terms of section 93 (5a) (a) and (b) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] [The Act]. An order confirming the application was made. Reasons were to follow. More
Applicant applied to this Court for the review of her dismissal from employment by
Respondent. The application was made in terms of sections 89(1) and 92 EE of the Labour
Act Chapter 28:01. Respondent opposed the application. More
This is an appeal in terms of Rule 19 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. The appeal was noted as against the determination of the Internal Appeals Committee handed down on 14th March, 2023. More
This matter concerns an immovable property namely House No. 48, McGhie Avenue Rhodene, Masvingo (hereinafter called the house) which forms part of the estate of the, late Cornelio Evans Ndige who died on 25 March 2012 and whose estate is registered under WE34/13 More
Before us is an appeal against the decision of the magistrates’ court which granted an application for summary judgment thereby evicting the appellant and all those claiming occupation through her from Stand No 985 Mabelreign Township, also known as No 16 Shashi Flats Mabelreign, Harare. In addition the appellant was ordered to pay to first and second respondents, the sum of US$700.00 being rent arrears from 1 November 2020 to May 2021, to be paid at the prevailing bank rate. US$100.00 per month was also payable to third respondent as holding over damages from June 2021 to the date of... More
At the hearing of this matter I dismissed the appeal and indicated that reasons would follow. These are they;
This is an appeal against a decision of the Disciplinary Committee dismissing appellant. Appellant was employed by Metallon Gold Zimbabwe (Pvt) Limited which operates Shamva Mine. He was charged of theft, gross incompetency and gross negligence in terms of the Code of Conduct. Appellant, who was employed as a Senior Gang Leader was working in a shift in the Smelting Room in May 2015. He left his subordinates to work without supervision and gold slime was stolen. More
On 24 August 2023, acting in terms of r 56 (2) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018, the applicant filed the present chamber application for the review of the first respondent (taxing officer)’s decision. On 1 August 2023, the first respondent declined to award to the applicant the United States dollar denominated disbursements, which it had paid to its own counsel, at the interbank rate prevailing on the date of taxation. Instead, the first respondent awarded the applicant these costs in RTGS dollars at the interbank rate prevailing on the date on which the applicant had voluntarily paid counsel in... More
GARWE JA
[1] This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court of Zimbabwe sitting at Harare granting the respondent’s claim against the appellant in the total sum of US$120 000 together with interest thereon and costs of suit. The amount represents land development levies for the period 2009 to 2013 which the respondent claimed were outstanding in terms of the Rural District Council Act, [Chapter 29:13] (“the Act”). In determining that the appellant was liable to pay the sum claimed by the respondent, the court a quo interpreted the word “owner” as defined in s 95... More
The first applicant is a mining company registered according to the laws of Zimbabwe. The applicant is a member of the New Dawn Mining group which owns and operates a number of mines in this country.
The second applicant is a private limited company which holds a tribute agreement to mine several of first applicant’s mining claims generally known as Antelope. These are the claims in dispute. They are fully described in the draft order. They will be referred to hereinafter as the mining claims. The respondent is cited in his official capacity tasked with the administration duties in terms... More
This is an urgent chamber application in which the two applicants seek an order interdicting the first to eleventh respondents, their employees, assignees, invites and all those claiming through them from mining any ore within the boundaries of the first applicant’s mining claims located in Maphisa Kezi. The details of the specific mining claims are given in the draft provisional order. Applicants also seek an order interdicting the same respondents from removing any mined ore, dump or sands from the said claims boundary. More
This is an urgent chamber application for an order interdicting the first to tenth respondents, their employees, assignees, invitees and all other persons claiming occupation through these respondents from mining ore at the disputed mining claims located in Maphisa, Kezi and from removing any mined ore, dump or sands from the said claims. The relief is being sought pending determination of the action instituted under Case Number HC 6672/23 for the ejectment of these respondents from the claims. More
