This is an appeal against the decision of the respondent’s disciplinary authority which dismissed appellant from employment following allegations of dishonesty including falsifying any document with fraudulent intent in contravention of the Public Services Regulations SI 1 of 2000 as amended. More
The Respondent, through its Notice of Response and Heads of Argument has taken a point in limine. The Respondent contends that the grounds of appeal do not conform to Rule 19 (1) and more particularly Form LC4 of the Labour Court rules, 2017 in that the grounds of appeal are not clear and concise. The Respondent further contends that grounds of appeal 4, 7 and 8 amount to narrations of events, they do not amount to grounds of appeal. The Respondent’s prayer is that the appeal ought to therefore be struck off the roll on this basis More
This is an application for bail pending trial, made in terms of s 116 (a) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07] (“the CPEA”) as read with this court’s bail rules.
The applicant, a former Mayor of the City of Harare, appeared before the Magistrates Court sitting at Harare on 13 March 2021 facing a charge of criminal abuse of duty as a public officer as defined in s 174 (1) (a) or (b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. More
The appellant is a former CID detective in the Zimbabwe Republic Police who was, prior to disengagement, based at Harare Central Police Station. He, along with one of his co-accused, Given Mushore, are serving a term of three years imprisonment for unlawful entry committed in aggravating circumstances and a term of thirty years imprisonment for murder. This followed their conviction and sentence by the High Court of Zimbabwe sitting at Harare (the court a quo) on 17 August 2022. The court a quo ordered the two sentences to run concurrently. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Arbitrator who dismissed the Appellant’s case on the basis that it had prescribed as provide for in section 94 of the Labour Act.
The brief facts of the case are the Appellant was dismissed in 2007 by Respondent following a hearing at the Respondent’s workplace. Appellant did not do anything to register his disagreement with the dismissal case until sometime in 2010 when he approached the labour officer with the view to having his case re-visited. He ended up at the arbitrator’s where the arbitrator noted that the claim was out... More
This judgment is in respect of an appeal which is cited by the appellant employee as an appeal against the verdict of the General Manager Appeals Authority dated 20 October 2023 and the NEC Appeals Committee decision of 17 November 2023. More
This is a common law application for rescissionof judgment. This application was initially brought by 181 applicants. All except applicant failed to file supporting affidavits to the application resulting in them withdrawing their applications. The applicant is a former employee of second respondent. The first respondent is a former director and operations manager of second respondent. The Registrar was cited in his official capacity and did not oppose the application. More
This matter was set down as a rescission of judgment application. This followed a judgment made in favour of the respondent in a case where the applicant had failed to comply with the rules that is where he had failed to file his heads of argument upon receipt of the respondent’s response. More
On 19 January, 2018, the applicant filed what he termed an “Urgent Chamber Application for a Spoliation Order and Interdict” against the first and second respondents. More
In this matter the applicants all employees of the respondent company had a grievance concerning non payment of wages. The parties went for arbitration and an award was made in favour of the applicants on 14 November 2010. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the National Hearing Committee which upheld the decision of the Hearing Committee.
The brief facts are that Appellant was employed by the Respondent. He is alleged to have inflated his overtime claims. He was charged and brought before the Hearing Committee which found him guilty and recommended his dismissal. Dissatisfied with this decision, Appellant appealed to the National Hearing Committee which proceeded to uphold the decision of the Hearing Committee. Appellant has now approached this Court for relief. More
From the papers filed coupled with the detailed submissions made by both counsel it is apparent that the applicant and the first respondent are literally fighting over the ownership of stand number 7953 Tynwald of Stand 7739 Tynwald Township, Harare.
The conflict between the two parties has manifested itself mainly over the control of the educational activities which are taking place within this stand. Both parties are laying claim to these educational activities.
The applicant has sought to be granted interim relief interdicting the first, second, third and fourth respondents from interfering with the running of the educational institution pending... More
MUZOFA J. The plaintiff issued out summons against the defendant claiming the following relief:
1. US$25 000 being salaries the defendant unlawfully awarded herself
2. $3 956.85 unlawfully encashed leave days
3. $11 688 excess school fees claimed by the defendant
4. $5 000 school fees claimed for a child no longer in school.
5. Return of a motor vehicle a Nissan Captiva registration number ACC 3926 that defendant illegally sold to herself
6. Return of a laptop illegally taken from plaintiff by the applicant.
The plaintiff also claimed interest on the amounts at the prescribed rate from the date... More
This is an appeal against a determination by an arbitrator sitting at Harare. The facts of the matter appear to be common cause. The respondent was an employee of the appellant. He was dismissed from employment without due process being followed by the employer. He was therefore unlawfully and wrongfully dismissed. These are factual findings made by the Learned Arbitrator. The Arbitrator ordered the appellant to pay the respondent all that was due to him. This order aggrieved the appellant leading to the present. More
