This is an appeal against a judgment of the Labour Court handed down in May 2013 which dismissed the appellant’s appeal after a consideration of the merits. After perusing the record and hearing submissions from parties, the court upheld the preliminary point that was raised by the respondent and dismissed the appeal. Reasons for the order have been requested by the appellant. More
There has been an inordinate delay in delivering judgment in this matter. It was a criminal appeal from the magistrates’ court. We heard argument on 2 August 2017 and reserved judgment. My Brother, MAWADZE J, was the lead judge in the case. It was hoped to deliver judgment in the forthcoming weeks. It was not to be. A dreadful family tragedy struck and scuttled all the work in progress, leaving the station somewhat disoriented for some considerable time afterwards. A horrific traffic accident claimed the lives of the Judge’s beloved wife; his driver and his sister-in-law. May the souls of... More
: Pursuant to an eviction order, evicting the appellant and all those claiming occupation through him, of the remaining extent of Farm 45 Truno Glendale and Plots 1, 4 and 5 of Dunmaglas Farm the appellant lodged the present appeal. The appellant’s grounds of appeal were visibly repetitive and an attempt to adduce evidence. More
The applicant seeks an interdict restraining the respondent from
interfering with his farming operations at Subdivision 3 of farm 45, Glendale (the farm). More
The applicant and the first respondent are fighting over who should occupy subdivision 3 of Farm 45, Glendale, Mashonaland Central (the farm), which is State land. The firstrespondent obtainedon 9 December 2016 a mandament van spolieundercase number HC 12380/16. On 13 December 2016, the applicant appealed against that order under case number SC 771/16. More
The matter has been set down in terms of rule22 of the Labour Court rules. The Respondent is alleged to have failed to file a notice of response. However during questioning of the Respondent it became clear the Respondent was never served with a notice to file a response. Respondent was only served with the notice of appeal papers. The dies induciae has not started to run even to date. However on 30 January 2013 Respondent filed a notice of response and heads of argument. The papers were served on the Appellant on the same date. From the above Respondent... More
This is an application wherein the applicant seeks an order for reinstatement by his employer. The application is somewhat confusing in that on one hand it is presented as an application where the relief of mandamus is being sought and yet on the other hand it presents itself as an application for the registration of an arbitral award.
The matter has a very long history dating back to 2011. The brief facts are that applicant was employed by the respondent. He was later dismissed after having been convicted of misconduct. An arbitrator who entertained the matter reinstated him to his... More
This matter was brought to me in terms of Rules 34 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017.
This is an application which is titled as follows:
“Take note that I make this application in terms of the Labour Act 17 Section 92 C (i) (a) (b) ( ) with the heading which say Rescission or Alteration by Labour Court of its Own Decisions)” More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award issued on 28 October 2010 in the following terms;
“That the claimant be paid damages of 3 years using the salary rate obtaining when he was unfairly dismissed.”
The appellant was employed by the respondent as a Senior Designated Agent until June 2007 when he was dismissed. More
In case number LC/H/1249/24, Applicant made an application for condonation which was struck off the roll by the Court on 27 January 2025. The operating part of the Order rendered by the Court read:
“1. The application for condonation is hereby struck off the roll by reason of non- compliance with the Rules, that is, failure to attach the requisite draft application, judgments sought to be appealed against.” More
This is a purported application for condonation for late noting an application for review. It is opposed. I say “purported” for the following reason.
This Court in Judgment Number LC/H/144/22 handed down on 3rd June 2022 determined a matter between the parties. The applicant has not appealed that judgment to the Supreme
Court. Instead he has approached this Court for “review”. The application is opposed with counsel for the respondent arguing that not only does the Court lack jurisdiction to review its own judgment, but the application is frivolous and vexatious. More
The Applicant seeks to evict the first respondent from a piece of land he was allocated in 2012 by way of an offer letter from the second respondent dated 24 September 2012. More
On the 13th of March the parties were in court on an appeal by the applicant. The respondent raised a preliminary point to the effect that the right to appeal was prescribed as has been decided in Patrick Munjovha v Delta Beverages (Pvt) Ltd SC 64/21. The appellant conceded the point and the appeal was struck off. (In hindsight it should have been dismissed. The order was uploaded the following day, the 14th. More
Eustaches Orphanides must be turning, if not rolling in his grave over the disputes that have sprouted after his death over his company, assets and over his will. He is at the very centre of the four consolidated matters before me in this opposed application. He is represented by his executor Thoukidides Demetriou. On the other side is Gilbert Tawanda Kaguru, a former business associate of Eustaches Orphanides. Eustaches died on 23 January 2021 and his estate was registered with the Master of the High Court under DR 463/21. More
