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
This is an appeal against an arbitral award which found as follows;
• “The contracts signed by the Claimants (Appellants herein) are in terms of Section 16(2) (b) of the Labour Act. The Claimants freely and voluntarily entered into contracts with less favourable conditions. The Claimants are bound by their signatures, caveat subscriptor rule. The contracts signed by the Claimants are valid and binding on the parties as far as grades, rates of pay and other benefits are concerned. Caveat subscriptor rule does not diminish right to length of service not lawfully terminated.
• The Respondent erred by not taking... More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court, granted on 20 December 2018, confirming a provisional order granted by that court on 24 October 2017. The effect of the judgment was to set aside the sale and transfer of the property in dispute to the fourth and fifth respondents and to enable the first and second respondents to exercise their alleged right of first refusal in respect of that property. More
The plaintiff is the Executor dative of the estate late Charles Muzanya, which was before his appointment being administered by his predecessor KeniasMutyasira the third defendant. The third defendant had during his administration of the estate sold Stand 79 Brackenhurst Township of Christmas Gift Extension Gweru to the first and seconddefendants. The fourth defendant is the registrar of Deeds who is being sued in his official capacity. He has transferred the property in dispute to the first and second defendants. The fifth defendant is the Master of the High Court who is also being sued in his official capacity. He... More
Applicant was charged with two counts of Unlawful Entry in aggravating circumstances and was convicted of both counts despite pleading not guilty. The complainants in both counts are residents of the same neighbourhood and their premises were broken into the same night one after the other. The complainant in the first count had her 3 cell phones stolen by the burglar. Fortunately for the complainant, the burglar must have left the premises in the second count in some hurry and dropped a pink satchel in which he had loaded some if his loot from both premises he broke into in... More
In this action the plaintiff issued summons claiming against the defendants, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, payment in the sum of $240 000.00, being 10% commission of the sum of $2 400 000.00 for the role he played as agent in the sale of or investment into, the 1st defendant’s mine. The plaintiff also claimed interest at the prescribed rate, collection commission and costs of suit. More
This is an appeal against the appellant’s dismissal from employment by the respondent following certain misconduct allegations which were levelled against him. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the respondent employer where it found applicant employee guilty of misconduct and penalised him by withholding his 2020 bonus and also by a final written notice. More
The applicant seeks the following relief:
“IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. The application for joinder of parties be and is hereby granted
2. The 1st and 2nd applicants be and are hereby joined as 3rd and 4th respondents in the summary judgment application under case no HC 379/19 and as 3rd and 4th defendants in the eviction matter under case number HC 379/19.
3. The 1st and 2nd applicants be and are hereby granted leave to file their notice of opposition to the summary judgment application within the next ten (10) days of the granting of this order.
4. In... More
