This is an appeal against both conviction and sentence. The appeal follows the conviction of the appellant on three counts of theft of trust property as defined in s 113 (2) (d) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. Pursuant to the conviction the appellant was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment of which 2 years imprisonment was suspended for a period of five years on the usual condition of good behaviour. The remaining 5 years imprisonment was suspended on condition of community service. More
The matter was referred to me for determination on the record in terms of Section 89 (2)(9)(i) of the Labour Act [Cap 28 : 01]. The matter had been filed in 2014 but was lying idle due to failure on the part of the Appellant to settle sheriff’s costs for services of Notice to Set- down. The Senior Judge through a directive dated 3rdOctober 2016 directed these matters be referred for determination on the record. More
The appellant worked for the respondent as an Administrator at Chiredzi. He was charged with misconduct. After a hearing he was dismissed from employment on the 13th May 2013. Thereafter he filed an application for review in this Court. The respondent opposed the application. More
This is an application for the upliftment of the bar operating against Applicant and condonation of late filing of heads of argument.
In terms of Rule 19(1) of the Labour Court Rules 2006 Statutory Instrument 59 of 2006 (The Rules), a party who is to be represented by a legal practitioner is obliged to file heads of argument, for an applicant within 14 days of receiving the notice of response to the application. The response was filed on the 22nd July, 2013 and Respondent’s Heads of Argument were filed on 9th September, 2013. More
This is an application for stay of execution of an arbitral award issued on 12 January 2011. The application was filed on 28 October 2013, the same day the notice of appeal was filed. The applicant contends that the respondents are desirous of enforcing the award by the Honourable Dangarembizi in terms of the quantification award dated 26 March 2012. The applicant further contends that it will suffer irreparable prejudice if the respondents are allowed to execute on the award. More
The applicant in this matter is the employer of the first20 respondents. The deputy sheriff of the High Court of Zimbabwe is the 21st respondent and he has not responded to the application. That being so, the 20 respondents shall simply be referred to as “the respondents.” The respondents together with others who are not party to these proceedings, obtained an arbitral award against the applicant on 12 February 2016 for the payment of US$625 729-50 in damages. More
The background is that the respondents were employed by the appellant. A dispute arose between the parties. The dispute was that the employer sought to introduce new contracts of employment to supersede the contracts it had with the respondents. The respondents refused to sign the new contracts. The employer then decided to pay those who had agreed to sign the new contracts More
This is an appeal against the decision of the arbitrator who ruled that the respondent employees who had refused to sign new USD contracts had not repudiated their contracts and put themselves out of employment. The matter has a long and chequered history of being in the Labour Court and in the Supreme Court. The instant judgment is written out in fulfilment of a remittal order from the Supreme Court where after the Supreme Court concluded on the issue of citation it remitted the matter to this court so that the merits of the appeal could be entertained. More
The applicant approached this court on an urgent basis for spoliatory relief and adeclaratur. During the proceedings the applicant abandoned the claim for a declaratur. After hearing parties I granted the order for spoliation. The applicant has requested for reasons for purposes of an appeal
The applicant is a mining company duly registered in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. The respondent is an adult with full capacity. The parties are embroiled in a dispute in respect of a mining site in the Kitsi area, Bindura ‘the property’ More
Before me is an action for eviction of the defendant by the plaintiff. These proceedings were brought to court as a stated case in terms of rule 52 of the High Court Rules, 2021. The facts giving rise to the dispute in casu are that on 1 December 2009, the plaintiff and defendant entered into the employment contract, which appears on pages 1-5 of the consolidated bundle of documents. Clause 10 of this contract reads as follows:
“The employee will have the benefit of an unfurnished company house, if a house is available and at the discretion of management. The... More
