In this matter plaintiff issued summons claiming;
a) payment in the sum of $42 448,78, for damages suffered arising from a motor vehicle accident which occurred on the 31st of December 2016, when 1st defendant, an employee of the 2nd defendant drove a motor vehicle negligently thereby causing plaintiff injuries and losses in respect of which plaintiff sues defendants jointly and severally.
b) Interest at the prescribed rate from the date of demand (19 March 2018) to date of payment.
c) Costs of suit. More
This court has time and again held that where an employee stands suspended or dismissed, he ceases to have any right to possess or occupy company property that he had entitlement to use as part of his employment benefits during the tenure of his employment. This is so unless the employee can prove some legal entitlement to continue holding onto the property. This call has generally gone unheeded as this court continues to be swamped with rei vindicatio applications by former employers seeking to reclaim their properties. This is one such case. More
At the conclusion of the hearing in this matter the appeal was dismissed with costs. It was indicated that the reasons would follow in due course. I now set them out hereunder. More
This is an appeal against the entire judgment of the High Court handed down on 3 May 2017. In that judgment, the High Court dismissed the appellant’s chamber application for a default judgment in terms of a Deed of Settlement. More
This is an application by the defendants for absolution from the instance at the close of the plaintiff’s case. The plaintiff’s claim which was instituted by way of summons for provisional sentence is for payment of a sum of US$2 506 132-86, together with interest thereon as stated in the summons, collection commission and costs of suit on the attorney-client scale. More
The applicant approached this court, by way of Chamber Book seeking an order in the following terms:
“1. The defendant shall pay to Plaintiff the sum of US$3 629 586.57 together with interest thereon at the rate of 15% per annum calculated from 1st October 2014 to date of full payment.
2.Defendant shall pay Plaintiff’s costs of suit on a legal practitioner and client scale” More
The applicant is a public company incorporated in terms of the Company laws of Zimbabwe and is listed on the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange. It has shares in the 6th respondent. It filed an urgent chamber application to this court seeking orders to regulate the holding of an extraordinary general meeting of the 6th respondent’s shareholders convened by the 1st to the 5th respondents. At the hearing of the application, it applied to amend, its draft order by seeking a declaration that the convening of the extra ordinary general meeting, by the 1st to the 5th respondents is in terms of... More
At the commencement of the proceedings, the Court enquired from Applicant’s legal practitioners whether the matter was properly before the Court seeing that that it purported to be a ‘Composite Application’ for condonation and review. The Court also enquired whether the Rules provided for such a procedure.
In response, Mr. Masuku stated that he was relying on precedent when he filed the documents in question. He further stated that he was relying on Read v Gardener 2019 (3) ZLR 575 (S) and Murambiwa v SEEDCO LCH/361/23. He stated that he did not have anything further to say in connection with... More
At the commencement of the proceedings, the Court enquired from Applicant’s legal practitioners whether the matter was properly before the Court seeing that that it purported to be a ‘Composite Application’ for condonation and review. The Court also enquired whether the Rules provided for such a procedure. More
This is an appeal from the decision of an arbitrator. It was handed down on 28 April 2015.
The respondent raised an objection in limine and stated that the appeal was improperly before the court. It was filed out of time contrary to the provisions of Rule 15 (1) of the Labour Court Rules, 2006. More
The 1st respondent is a former employee of the appellant. He was employed as a Purchase Officer. Following an audit the appellant discovered that 1st respondent hand caused losses to the company in the amount of US$314 through favouring one client, Champions, a supplier of motor spares. Initially appellant had referred the matter to the police and then acing on advice opted to
conduct disciplinary process. The 1st respondent thereafter started absconding from work from the 14th of August, 2021. The appellant then levelled charges against 1st respondent of absenteeism; (1 count) unsatisfactory work performance (4 counts). A disciplinary hearing... More
To that end this is a consolidated matter in respect of LC/H/350/13, LC/H/380, LC/H/384/14 and LC/H/259/15.
Parties agreed on the issues for determination by this court which were set out as follows:
Whether or not
i) Arbitrator Dangarembizi erred in finding the respondent not guilty of acts inconsistent with the terms and conditions of his contract of employment;
ii) Arbitrator Dangarembizi erred in finding the respondent guilty of wilful disobedience of a lawful order;
iii) Arbitrator Dangarembizi erred in interfering with the penalty of dismissal and in ordering the respondent’s reinstatement;
iv) Arbitrator Dangarembizi erred in awarding the employee back-pay... More
The matter was placed before me as an appeal against an arbitral award handed down on the 13th of October 2011. The Respondent was employed by the Appellant as the Sports Director. He was suspended from duty on 21st June 2011 on allegations of misconduct. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court of Zimbabwe handed down on 13 January 2016 under judgment number HH 24/16 of case number HC 2899/15, in terms of which the More
