This is a chamber application for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Labour Court handed down on 28 February 2020. The application is made in terms of s 92F(3) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01](“the Act”), the Labour Court having refused the applicant leave to appeal on 20 November 2020.After hearing arguments from counsel, I reserved judgment. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Labour Court (the court a quo) handed down on 28 February 2020 setting aside the appellant’s decision to dismiss the respondents from its employment after a disciplinary hearing and ordering a fresh hearing. At the end of the hearing the court allowed the appeal and indicated that reasons will be provided in due course. More
Matiyashe, for the respondent
DUBE-BANDA J: Before me is an urgent chamber application. This application was launched in this court on 17thJune 2021. It was placed before me and I directed that it be served on the respondents together with a notice of set down for 2nd July 2021. The application is opposed by the 1strespondent. The 2nd and 3rdrespondents are cited in their official capacities because the implementation of the order sought by the applicant, if granted may require their services. The applicant seeks the following relief: More
This is an application for leave to execute a judgment of this court given in Case Number HC 1002/13 pending determination of an appeal noted to the Supreme Court against it by the respondent. The application was brought as an urgent chamber application and was filed on 20 February 2013. The background to the application is as follows: More
This is an application for confirmation of a draft ruling. The application is made in terms of section 93 (5a) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] ( “The Act” ).
History
When the matter initially came before the Labour Court, the 2nd respondent raised some constitutional issues and the matter was referred to the constitutional court, the constitutional Court struck the matter off its Roll.
The matter was then set down again before the Labour Court for the court to deal with the merits of the application. More
During the period extending from 14 to 18 October 2013, the two respondents who were employed by the appellant joined other employees in a collective job action. The strike was over unpaid salaries. An attempt by the appellant’s management to stop the strike failed leading to the issuance of a disposal order by the Labour Court on 30 October 2013 declaring the job action illegal and directing the workers, who included the respondents, to return to work. More
This matter appeared before me on 18 June 2020, Ms B Rupapa appeared for the applicant whilst Messrs B Ndlovu and T Kuchenga appeared for 1st and 2nd respondents respectively. After hearing the parties on that day, the parties requested for and an order to the following effect was made by consent that;
(1) The matter be postponed to 25 June 2020 at 1000 hours.
(2) The parties are directed to file further submissions and documents, if any, refered to in the submissions.
(3) 1st respondent is directed not to bar 2nd respondent from delivering coal to applicant pending the... More
The background to this matter is that on 20 February 2024 the respondent as applicant in case number HCBC 371/24 obtained against the applicant as respondent a provisional order from this court (per NDLOVU J), whose interim relief is couched as follows:
Pending determination of this matter, the Applicant is granted the following relief -
The Respondent be and are (sic) hereby ordered and directed to allow the Applicant to take delivery of 700 tonnes of coke in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding of the 30th December 2022. More
It is common cause that there is a business relationship between applicant and 2nd respondent. Applicant and 1st respondent have a contract for the supply of coal to applicant. On the other hand applicant has a similar contract with 2nd respondent. First respondent has a contract with 2nd respondent for the mining of coal destined for the foreign market. There is a clause in this contract which bars the 2nd respondent from unconditionally selling coal to the applicant. More
This court granted an application for late noting of appeal in favour of the respondent. The applicant is dissatisfied with the decision of the court in this respect. The applicant intends to approach the Supreme Court for relief. This is therefore an application in terms of section 92 F (I) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. More
There has been ferocious litigation in a space of four months pitting several protagonists. The dispute was convoluted and the issues multifaceted. At the centre was a company called Hwange Coal Gasification Company (Private) Limited. For ease of reference I shall refer to this company as the Coal Gasification Company. The one protagonist wasa Chinese company by the name of Taiyuan Company Limited. The variantsto that name, vehemently disputed by the other protagonists, were Taiyuan Sanxing Company Limited and Taiyuan Sanxing Economic and Trade Company Limited. I shall come back to the dispute over this company’s name later. But hereafter... More
At the close of the plaintiff’s case Mr Kwenda, who appeared for the 1st defendant moved the court to grant absolution from the instance which application was strenuously opposed by Mr Majoko for the plaintiffs.
Mr Kwenda’s application was anchored on a number of factors which I must confess completely took the court by surprise especially given the nature of the joint pre-trial conference minute filed by the parties in this court on 31 May 2017.
The 1st defendant’s counsel attacked what he perceived to be the shortcomings in the pleadings filed by the plaintiffs, the alleged lack of locus... More
This is an action for the vindication of the plaintiff’s vehicle.
The salient features of this action may be summarised as follows.The plaintiff is the registered owner of a Toyota Land Cruiser registration no. ACF 1290. The defendant was appointed a nonexecutivechairman of the plaintiff’s board of directors since 2006. He was allocated the above referenced vehicle for his use in July 2011 a month before he was removed from plaintiff’s board. Upon his removal as chairperson, the defendant did not return the motor vehicle and has refused to return the vehicle to the plaintiff. More
The plaintiff sued out summons against the defendant for payment of a sum of USD247 317.50 which the defendant owed it following breach of a contract entered into between the parties. After entering an appearance to defend, the defendant elected to utilize alternatives to pleading available to it and filed a special plea instead of pleading over on the merits. The special plea is based on two grounds, firstly, that the plaintiff, being a company is improperly cited as Hwange Coal Gasification Company only omitting the words (Pvt) Ltd. It is argued that,for that reason, there is therefore no plaintiff... More
After hearing submissions from Respondent’s Counsel, I dismissed the application for review with costs and indicated that my reasons will follow.
These are they.
The application proceeded in terms of Rule 19(3) (b) of this Court’s Rules 59/2006 in that Applicant having failed to file its heads of argument as required in terms of Rule 19 was barred. More
