Appellant’s grounds of appeal complained that,
“1. The National Employment Council Negotiating Committee erred in failing to appreciate that the Respondent’s disciplinary process was flawed as it negated and breached the principles of natural justice by inter alia; …
2. Even assuming but not admitting that the disciplinary process was properly conducted the NEC’s Negotiating Committee (“NEC”) erred and seriously misdirected itself when it failed to address and concede the fact that Appellant had been reinstated on 17 May 2012 and accordingly was entitled to his back pay.
3. Appellant was not allowed to address in mitigation before the decision... More
The background of the matter is that the appellant is employed by the respondent as a relationship manager.
On 15 April 2008, the applicant was appointed as a manager and since his appointment in 2008, he had use of a Nissan/J85/D/CAB. He was allowed to purchase the vehicle in 2010 and in 2011 he was given a second motor vehicle, a Nissan NP300 which he continues to use to this date.
In November 2015, some 4 years later, the respondent wrote to him, the contents of which letter aggrieved the appellant who raised a grievance with the respondent. The complaint... More
The appellant was convicted for driving without due care and attention as defined in section 51 (1) of the Road Traffic Act [Chapter 13:11]. He was sentenced to pay a fine. He was unhappy about his conviction and appealed. More
This is an application for bail pending appeal. The applicant was arraigned before the Regional Court Rusape facing allegations of rape as defined in s 65 (1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. The applicant denied the allegation but was convicted after trial and held liable for raping a 13 year old juvenile. The applicant was sentenced to 18 years imprisonment of which 3 years imprisonment were suspended on usual conditions of good behaviour More
This is an appeal against the determination of Respondent Works Council sitting as an Appeals Committee which determination was handed down on the 20th November, 2019. The determination effectively upheld an earlier determination by the Respondent Disciplinary Committee finding Appellant guilty and imposing thereafter a dismissal penalty. The appeal is opposed. More
The three applicants in this matter are not directly connected to one another. The 1st applicant is aged 47 and employed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as Consul-General and was the Zimbabwean Ambassador designate to the Republic of Mozambique at the time of his arrest. The 2nd applicant is aged 42 and was employed by the Metropolitan Bank of Zimbabwe Limited as Company Secretary until his retrenchment in December 2004. The 3rd applicant is employed by ZANU-PF as a Deputy Director for External Relations. More
On 1 June 2012 this Court gave an order remitting the issue of penalty to the Respondent for reconsideration in the following terms.
“The matter is referred back to the Disciplinary Hearing Committee to pass an appropriate penalty in the circumstances”. More
This is an appeal against conviction and sentence. The appellant was convicted of one count of “possession of a firearm without a licence” in contravention of s 4(1) of the Firearms Act [Chapter 10:09] and unlawful possession of explosives in contravention of s 3(1) and (2) of the Explosives Act [Chapter 10:08]. He was sentenced as follows: Count 1: 36 months imprisonment of which 15 months imprisonment is suspended for 5 years on condition accused does not within that period commit any defence involving the possession of a firearm without a valid certificate for which he is sentenced to imprisonment... More
This matter epitomizes the dangers inherent in the multiplicity of proceedings in different courts over basically the same dispute. This is clearly undesirable. More
The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the Magistrates Court at Mutasa. He was convicted for contravention of s 29 of the Petroleum Act [Chapter 13:22] as read with Petroleum (Liquid Gas) Regulations [Chapter 13:23] operating a liquid petroleum gas retail business without a licence. The appellant was convicted after a protracted trial and sentenced to pay a fine of RTGS$ 8 500-00 or in default of payment 6 months imprisonment. Dissatisfied with the conviction the appellant lodged the present appeal with this court. More
This is an application for review.
The applicant was employed by the respondent following allegations of misconduct, a disciplinary hearing was conducted in terms of the respondent’s code of conduct. The applicant was convicted and dismissed from employment. Aggrieved, applicant filed this application for review.
The respondent raised some points in limine. The first of which was that the applicant’s application for review was filed out of time. This objection was however later withdrawn by the Respondent. More
The appellant issued summons against the defendant on 15 October 2002, claiming the delivery of 6 heifers or payment of the sum of $198 000-00 as representing the value of the heifers. The appellant had the summons served upon one Tinashe Madondo, an accounts manager at the defendant’s stores. No appearance to defend the action was filed and a default judgment was duly entered against the defendant. In due course, the default judgment was rescinded. More
Three persons stand out in this application. These are the applicant, one Amos Phiri and the first respondent. I shall respectively refer to them as Maguta, Phiri and Muvango.
Maguta filed the current application. He stated that he purchased a Totoyta Corolla motor vehicle with registration number ADW 4685 [“the vehicle”] from Phiri. He said he purchased it in March, 2016. He paid $6000 for the vehicle, according to him. He moved the court to declare him the owner of the vehicle. More
This is an application for bail pending appeal. The brief facts are that applicant was charged and convicted of Contravening s82 (1) of the Parks and Wildlife SI 362/1990 as read with s 128 (b) of the Parks and Wildlife Act [Cap 20:14], that is to say unlawful possession of unregistered or unmarked ivory and was sentenced to 9 years imprisonment. The applicant noted an appeal against conviction and sentence. More
This is an appeal against the penalty which was imposed on the Appellant by the Respondent’s Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Public Service Commission.
The facts of the case are that: The Appellant who was in the Respondent’s employ as a Deputy Headmaster was charged with contravening section 44(2(a) of the Public Service Regulations 2000 as read with paragraphs 2, 3 and 8 of the First schedule ( Section 2) of these regulations. More
