This is an application for condonation of late filing of an application for review. On 9 October 2015 the applicant noted an appeal against an arbitrator’s decision. The appeal was challenging procedural issues. On 18 March 2016 the appeal was dismissed. On 24 March 2016 the applicant filed the present application.
The applicant states that six months delay is not inordinate. He also states that the labour officer has no jurisdiction in the matter and if condonation is not granted it will be tantamount to allowing an unlawful act to stand. The applicant avers that there will be no prejudice... More
The plaintiff and the defendant were married at Harare on 5 September 1998. Two daughters were born of the marriage. These were born in 2001 and 2004 respectively. On 31 January 2007, the plaintiff issued summons praying for a decree of divorce to issue on the grounds that his relationship with the defendant had broken down to such an extent that there is no possibility of reconciliation. More
The applicant sought the following relief by way of urgent chamber application, that:
“1 The Second Respondent and all those holding occupation under him be and are hereby interdicted and prevented from in any manner whatsoever;
a) Interfering with the Applicants’ (sic) normal farming operations on Mwonga Farm including the grading, baling and selling of tobacco;
b) Interfering with the Applicants’ (sic) manager, workers and invitees rights of access to the farm and all improvements, facilities and residences thereon;
c) Interfering with the Applicants’ (sic) intention and conduct in using, moving or dealing with its equipment as it deems fit... More
On 22nd June 2015 at Harare Arbitrator N.K. Nhimba issued an arbitration award. He dismissed Appellants complaints about the non-renewal of their contracts by Respondent, Appellants then appealed to this Court. Respondent opposed the appeal. More
It is the plaintiff’s averment that between 4 January 2011 and 19 March 2014 it rendered legal services to the DWT Companies whilst they were under provisional judicial management. More
This is an appeal against the determination of the National Employment Council for the Tobacco Industry (“NECTI”) dated 6 March 2015.
The appellant was dismissed from the respondent’s employment with effect from 21 April 2011. He noted an appeal to the Works Council in October 2013. The Works Council dismissed the appeal on the basis that it was out of time. The appellant then appealed to NECTI which also dismissed the appeal for the same reason. The appellant approached this court seeking condonation of late noting of appeal at the Works Council. This court declined jurisdiction and dismissed the application. More
This is a Chamber Application for condonation of late noting of an appeal. The Applicant was dismissed from the Respondent’s employ with effect from the 21st of April 2011. The Applicant noted an appeal with the Works Council in October 2013. The Works Council dismissed the appeal on the basis that it was out of time. In terms of Statutory Instrument 322 of 1996 (Collective Bargaining Agreement: Tobacco Industry Code of Conduct) Part VII section 23 (2) an appeal should be noted within five working days of the letter of dismissal. The Applicant then appealed to the National Employment Council... More
The Appellants issued out summons in the lower court for the eviction of first and second respondents from number 20625 Cranbrook Park Ruwa (the property) and claimed costs of suit on an attorney and client scale. Appellants are husband and wife. First and Second respondents are also husband and wife. In the Particulars of Claim, Appellants alleged that the property was initially bought by the second Appellant from third respondent sometime in the year 2002. It was nonetheless transferred to the first Appellant after a mix-up in sales. In 2015 the property was ceded by first Appellant to one Kelvin... More
On 30 September 2020 we dismissed an appeal against sentence lodged by the appellant. We gave an extempore judgment and undertook to avail the written reasons in due course.
These are they:
The appellant was convicted by the Regional Magistrate Mutare following his plea to Robbery as defined in s 126 (1) (a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. The brief facts of the matter being that the appellant together with accomplices used force and violence threatening the complainants with a pistol, machete using a rope to assault the complainants caused the complainants to relinquish control... More
Appellant appealed to this Court against his dismissal from employment by Respondent.
His grounds of appeal complained that,
“1. The Appellant was not accorded a fair hearing at the work place
and in particular the Respondent refused/neglected to release key witnesses.
The disciplinary proceedings were heavily, flawed and the principles of natural justice and fairness were not adhered to.
The Appellant did not receive adequate training and was not given proper induction. The decision to dismiss the Appellant is too harsh in the circumstances.
4) The Applicant (sic) was not afforded an opportunity to address the disciplinary committee in mitigation.” More
The basis of this application is set out in detail in the affidavit deposed by one Phillip Chiyangwa. He is the director and alter ego of the first applicant. He avers that on first applicant’s behalf, he applied to first respondent for the purchase and development of 526 hectares of virgin land in Chegutu. It was intended to develop the land into residential stands.
In September 2001 first respondent’s council deliberated on the subject matter of the sale of 526 hectares. It approved the application by first applicant and notified it accordingly. He was, as chairman of first applicant, invited... More
This is an appeal in terms of Rule 67 (1) of the Supreme Court Rules 2018 against the dismissal of the appellant’s bail application by the High Court. More
This is an appeal against a determination by the Chief Designated Agent of the Negotiating Committee of the National Employment Council for the Commercial Sectors of Zimbabwe( NECCSZ) which set aside a decision of the Local Joint Committee (of the NECCSZ) and ordered the appellant to reinstate the respondent with no loss of salary or benefits. This aggrieved the appellant leading to the present appeal . Three grounds of appeal are raised. These are that (i) the Negotiating Committee erred and misdirected itself in finding that the respondent was not dishonest and yet it was proven that he had deliberately... More
On April 19 2016 the applicant issued summons against the respondents, claiming as against the first respondent, the sum of US$ 4, 660 117.49 being the amount due and payable in respect of work carried out by it at first respondent’s main campus at Masvingo. It also claimed interest on that sum at the prescribed rate plus costs of suit on a legal practitioner and client scale and collection commission calculated in terms of the Law Society By Laws of 1982 as amended by SI 157 of 2014.
The background facts to this matter are summarized More
