This is an application for condonation. The applicant seeks to be allowed to file out of time a dual review and appeal against the decision to dismiss the applicant from employment.
The record shows that the employer sought to discipline its employee, the appellant, in terms of its Code of Business Conduct. More
The appellants appealed against the decision of the Magistrates Court in which they were convicted after contest of contravening sections 189 as read with s 47 (1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (the Code) and s 89(1) of the Code. More
The Applicant approached this court seeking the registration of an arbitral award in terms of section 98 (14) of the Labour Act [Cap 28:01].
The application is opposed mainly on three grounds which were raised as points in limine. Firstly the Respondent argues that the applicant proceeded by way of chamber application instead of a court application. Secondly that the award was granted in default and the Respondent has applied for the rescission of the award. Thirdly the matter is lis pendenis.
Points in Limine More
DUBE-BANDA J: This is an application for bail pending trial. Applicant is being charged with the crime of robbery as defined in section 126 of the Criminal Law [Codification and Reform] Act [Chapter 9:23]. It being alleged that on the 26 March 2021, applicant in the company of other six accomplices used violence, or threats of immediate violence upon one Zenzo Proud Nkomo to relinquish control over 200 kgs of pregnant gold carbons and one 303 rifle, the property of Lone Mine (complainant). More
What confronts this court in this civil trial is a box ring match. There is no witness testimony, nor is there any other real, direct and independent evidence to support either side’s averments. It is the plaintiff’s word against that of his opponent. The mammoth task is the need to place before the court enough circumstantial evidence upon which the court can plough through to arrive at a reasonable inference exclusively pointing one direction as opposed to the other, intriguingly bearing in mind the parameters of the burden of proof in Civil matters. More
The facts of the matter are that the applicant and the first respondent are involved in a trial in the Magistrates Court. The first respondent which is the plaintiff in the matter sued the applicant who is the defendant for eviction from Shop no. 11 Corner 40 Cameron Street Harare. It is common cause that on 7 July 2023, the applicant arrived late for continuation of trial and found the court having issued a default judgment. It is on this basis that the applicant prepared and filed the present urgent chamber application for stay of execution of the default judgment... More
The applicant approached this Honourable court on an urgent basis seeking the following relief; it is ordered that,
i) First respondents bar and restaurant operating at number 71 Central Avenue, Harare be and is hereby declared an unlawful nuisance infringing on applicant’s rights.
ii) that the first respondents license to operate a bar and restaurant operating at number 71 central avenue issued without following due process be and is hereby declared null and void.
iii) That the second and third respondent be and are hereby directed to revoke the issued license upon the issuance of this order, and lastly.
iv)... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court (the court a quo) wherein it dismissed the appellant’s claim for an interdict against trademark infringement by the first respondent. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award handed down by the Honourable M Mpango Arbitrator on the 23rd of February 2015. The operative part of the award reads as follows. More
This is an appeal against an award by an arbitrator. Before the merits of the appeal were argued, the respondent raised a point in limine. The respondent argued that the appellant had neither complied with the arbitral award nor applied for the suspension thereof pending the determination of the appeal. The respondent argued that an appeal against an arbitral award does not suspend its operation. It was submitted that under the circumstances, the appellant was not properly before the Court until it had purged its contempt. Mr Mugandiwa who appeared on behalf of the appellant argued that an appeal against... More
This matter came as an appeal against the arbitrator’s award which ordered the reinstatement of the Respondent to his former position at work without loss of benefits, alternatively that the Appellant company was to pay him damages in lieu of reinstatement if it was of the view that reinstatement was no longer possible.
The basic ground of appeal which was cited by the Appellant company was couched in the following words: ”The arbitrator failed to observe principles of natural justice as he conspicuously displayed bias against the applicant as he made a decision without calling parties to appear before him”... More
This is an application for leave to appeal against the decision of this court that was handed down on 9 February 2019. This court ordered the Applicant to reinstate the Respondent to his former position without loss of salaries and benefits and if reinstatement was no longer possible the Applicant was to pay Respondent damages in lieu of reinstatement. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the arbitrator. The facts in this matter are common cause and can be summarised in the following manner. More
This is an appeal against an Arbitral Award.
This appeal was set down for hearing on the 19th May, 2021. On this date, the appeal was postponed to the 27th May, 2021 at the Court’s instance after the Court had observed that, the matter that gave rise to the arbitral award was a matter which had been dealt with and determined in terms of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations, Statutory Instrument 15 of 2006 (THE NATIONAL CODE). This position was accepted by both parties. More
