Welcome to Midlands State University Library

Court Judgements



Browse all Court Judgements
The relief sought on appeal is incompetent since the Applicant prays for reinstatement when that was not the prevailing position prior to the dismissal. Prior to the dismissal on the 14th August, 2020, the Applicant was suspended from employment on the 6th July, 2020. The status quo that has to be restored is therefore the position of suspension and not the reinstatement. More

Applicant applied to this Court for condonation of a late appeal in terms of Rule 22 of the Labour Court Rules S.I. 150/17. Respondent opposed the application. The decision sought to be appealed was made by the Appeals Officer on the 14th September 2020. In terms of Rule 19 applicant ought to have appealed to this Court within 21 (twenty-one) days of that decision. He did not do so. He filed an application for condonation in March 2022 under reference LC/H/235/22. Same was struck off the roll on 5th August 2022. He filed another application for condonation on 22nd September... More

For a party seeking the registration of a caveat to succeed in obtaining a court order for that purpose, he or she must establish that he/she has a legal interest in the property that needs to be protected by means of a caveat. A caveat is essentially an encumbrance placed on a property restricting any dealings in respect of and alienation of the property. More

This matter in my view highlights some of the glaring conflicts between customary law and the general law. This matter presented itself before me in chambers on a certificate of urgency in terms of r 244 of the High Court Rules 1971 as amended. More

On 23rd February, 2011 the Honourable L. Maburutse made an arbitration award. In terms thereof, he dismissed Appellants’ claim of unlawful termination of their employment by Respondent. Appellants then appealed to this Court against the award. More

Applicants applied to this Court for joinder in terms of Rule 33(2) of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. At that onset of oral argument respondent raised a point in limine which applicants opposed. More

Applicants applied to this Court for their joinder to the appeal pending under reference LCH 74/23. The application was made in terms of Rule 33(2) of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. Respondent opposed the application. More

This is an urgent application for a mandamus van spolie. The facts relied upon by the applicant are as follows: The applicant and the 1st respondent are acquaintances. Sometime in November 2011, the 1st respondent approached the applicant seeking help to find a buyer for her cement. The applicant facilitated an arrangement between the 1st respondent and an unidentified third party. The 1st respondent and the third party concluded their transaction. The 1st responded requested to use the applicant’s bank account for the deposit of the purchase price as she did not have a bank account of her own. The... More

Pursuant to the conviction and sentence for Attempted Murder as defined in s 189 (1) as read with s 47 (1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] the appellant lodged the present appeal with this court. The appellant a girlfriend to the complainant was convicted of unlawfully stabbing the complainant one Josam Mapinge in circumstances where there was realisation that there was a real risk or possibility that murder may be committed. The Appellant who stabbed the complainant Josam Mapinge with a knife once in the abdomen was convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to 6... More

The applicant approached this court seeking the following provisional order: “TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT 1. That order restoring the applicant’s undisturbed and peaceful occupation of stand number 193, Fleetwood, Bindura be and is hereby confirmed. The 1st respondent to pay costs of suit. More

The appellant who was jointly charged with one Ekem Matutu was convicted of stock theft as defined in s 14(2)(b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Cap 9:23] by the Provincial Magistrate sitting at Zvishavane on 23 May 2019. After a full contested trial Ekem Matutu was acquitted. Ekem Matutu was not legally represented but the appellant was legally represented by one Nyabawa. The learned Provincial Magistrate did not find any special circumstances and on 5 June, 2019 the appellant was sentenced to the mandatory 9 years imprisonment. More

This is an appeal against the determination of the National Employment Council”(Banking Undertaking)’s Appeals Board (NEC Appeals Board) handed down on 29 April 2011. The determination ordered the reinstatement of the respondent without loss of salary or benefits, reversing the appellant’s Disciplinary Committee’s penalty of dismissal. More

The three respondents were employed by the appellant in different capacities. During the course of their employment, the respondents committed certain acts of misconduct whose details are irrelevant in the resolution of this case. All the respondents were charged albeit separately and were found liable. The penalty given for each of them was a demotion and a final written warning. Each of them appealed to the National Employment Council Appeals board. For the first respondent the appeals board confirmed the verdict but altered the penalty. The appellant had demoted the first respondent from Grade C5 to B4. The appeals board... More

This judgment is in respect of two related applications involving, to a large extent, the same parties. In Case No. HC206/20 the applicant seeks an order for the setting aside of the decision of the first respondent approving the second respondent’s bill of costs on the grounds that it is unreasonable, unfair and unlawful. The application is being made in terms of s 4(1) of the Administrative Justice Act [Chapter 10:28]. In Case No. HC 592/20 the applicant, who is the second respondent in HC 206/20, seeks an order that the first to seventh respondents pay the sum of $339... More

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Labour Court dismissing an appeal and review application instituted by the appellant against a decision of the Retrenchment Board (the Board). The decision was communicated to the parties on 28 April 2017. More