Welcome to Midlands State University Library

Court Judgements



Browse all Court Judgements
This is an application for review by Madziva (Applicant). The document that gave rise to this application is a response (THE RESPONSE) dated 13th February, 2014 by the Respondent’s human Resources Officer to Applicant’s legal practitioner’s notice of appeal dated 11th February, 2014 and addressed to Applicant’s legal practitioners. More

The issue which arises in this matter is rather a novel one. It is important for counsel to apply their minds to all matters which they deal with especially statutory offences. I find if unfair that counsel would not endeavour to carry out any meaningful research but rather swallow hook, line and sinker all what would have happened in the lower court. This is what happened in this matter and both counsel later admitted that they also doubted the propriety of the charge preferred against the appellant but nonetheless did not raise any eye brows. More

The applicant was convicted by the Regional Court sitting at Harare following separate trials presided over by different regional magistrates. More

1. The Application for a declaratur to the effect that the 1-5th applicants and 3rd -18th respondents cannot hold valid elections or set or restructure the 2nd respondent’s structures on their own. 2. The ancillary relief is granted to the effect that: 2.1 The 1-5th applicants and 3rd-18th respondents be and are hereby directed to hold fresh elections, within 3 calendar months of receiving this court order, for all the elected positions of the 2nd respondent as provided for in terms of its constitution, and the elections would be organised, conducted and supervised by a team, set by the 1st... More

At the hearing of an application for review I reserved my ruling on points in limine raised by the respondent. This is it. The agreed facts are that the applicant was employed by the respondent as a staff bus driver on a three months fixed term contract with effect from 15 January 2014. The last such contract signed by the parties was from 1 July 2014 to 31 September 2014. No contract was signed on 1 October until 9 December when the respondent approached the applicant to sign a new contract. More

This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision rendered by this Court on the 24th of January 2025 under Case Number LC/H/1174/24 and Judgment No. LC/H/27/25. The application is brought in terms of section 92 (F) (1) of the Labour Act, [Chapter 28:01]. More

AND WHEREAS , In the 2nd paragraph and the 3rd sentence, that sentence reads: ‘Applicant was tried and found of guilty of theft and was subsequently dismissed from employment.’ AND WHEREAS , The sentence should read: “Applicant was tried and found guilty of theft and was subsequently dismissed from employment.” Judgment LCH/54/24 is accordingly corrected as indicated above. More

This is an application for review against the proceedings of the Respondent’s disciplinary committee that was conducted on 14 September 2022.The applicant was subsequently dismissed on 15 September 2022 More

On the 4th September, 2015 an arbitral award was issued against Applicant in which it was ordered to remit to Respondent an amount of $7 335.32 as union dues. Applicant filed an appeal against this award. It has filed this application for interim relief seeking in the interim that the arbitral award be stayed pending finalisation of its appeal and as a final order, that the award be stayed permanently. In agreement with the Respondent’s submission, I find that the final order being sought is incompetent and therefore cannot be granted, as it has the effect allowing the appeal before... More

This is an appeal against an arbitral award. The respondent is a registered trade union in terms of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. It represents employees in the rural district councils of Zimbabwe. The appellant is a rural district council incorporated in terms of the Rural District Council Act [Chapter 29:13]. The claim brought by the respondent before the arbitrator was for union dues arrears for the period July 2014 to April 2015 together with 15% interest on all dues paid after the 5th day of the ensuing month. The arbitrator found for the respondent and ordered that the appellant... More

On 9 February 2012, the applicant filed the present application seeking a declaratur and other consequential relief. The application was opposed by the respondent on 12 February 2012. In the opposition, the respondent raised two preliminary points. More

The plaintiff is a duly incorporated company which has an agreement with the Ministry of Agriculture and the Tobacco Industry Marketing Board (“TIMB”) in terms of which it is permitted to enter into contracts with tobacco farmers to fund the growing of flue-cured tobacco which would then be purchased directly by the plaintiff. The defendant is a commercial tobacco farmer carrying out her trade at Two Journey’s End Farm in Wedza District. More

The applicant seeks an order setting aside an arbitral award handed down by the second respondent on 16 August 2010. The applicant avers that the award is in conflict with the public policy of Zimbabwe in the following material respects: a) “The Arbitrator made a determination on the issues not placed before him for adjudication.” b) “A breach of the rules of natural justice occurred in connection with the making of the award.” c) “The award conflicts with the substantive law of Zimbabwe in material respects.” More

The brief facts of the case are that the respondent who was on “fixed term contract of employment with the appellant approached the GDC after he had failed to recover value for the days which he says he had accrued at the respondent’s. Based on the evidence presented before it both oral and written the GDC ruled that indeed the employee had made out a good case for payment for the days he had accrued when he was still in the appellant’s employment. To that end the GDC ordered the appellant to pay the respondent for those days More

This is an appeal against an arbitral award. The first and second respondents are former employees of the appellant. They were employed in the capacities of shift manager and factory manager respectively on fixed term contracts. Such contracts were for a two year period. The last contracts ran from the 1st of April 2012 to the 31st of March 2014. More