Applicant issued summons against the defendant on 15 June 2016 claiming payment of $35 576.17 arising out of money lent and advanced to and duly acknowledged by the defendant, interest thereon and bank charges that may accrue at the bank’s prevailing rate from June 2016 and costs. More
This is an application in which the applicant seeks summary judgment in the sum of US$43 086-65 plus interest at the prescribed rate from due date to date of payment. It also seeks an order that stand 1346 Que Que Township of stand number 277A Que Que Township which was mortgaged be declared executable and that the respondent should bear the costs of suit on a legal practitioner and client scale. More
At the commencement of the trial, the plaintiff sought an amendment to its claim by the deletion of the amounts of fourteen billion eight hundred million and six hundred and sixty six billion dollars and their substitution with the amounts of US$ twenty two thousand five hundred and sixty dollars and one million fifteen thousand four hundred and seventy dollars respectively, the first amount being the replacement cost of one vehicle and the second amount being the global sum for forty five brand new trucks. I granted the application to amend in the face of opposition from Mr Kamudefwere and... More
The plaintiff’s (bank’s) claim against the defendants is for the payment of US$23 104.76, interest thereon at the prescribed rate and costs of suit on a legal practitioner and client scale in terms of the loan agreement. More
This is an appeal by the Respondent bank against the decision of the N.E.C for the Banking Industry and Undertaking’s decision to reinstate the appellant to her original position with the bank. Appellant had been dismissed by the respondent on allegations of having contravened category D section 11 (1) of the Respondent’s code of conduct which read “any serious act, conduct or omission inconsistent with the fulfillment of the express or implied conditions of contract”. More
The cause of action in this case arises out of an alleged breach of contract by the defendant for the supply of 20 IBM A50 desktop computers (computers) to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is suing the defendant for specific performance or payment of damages in lieu thereof. More
The parties are embroiled in a labour dispute. The respondent is the appellant’s employee.
The undisputed facts are that the respondent was a Salaries and Administration manager Grade C5. In 2009 the respondent was verbally requested to take additional duties and responsibilities of the Human Resource Manager who had left employment. The respondent was paid an acting allowance in accordance with the Company’s Policy.
A dispute ensued in that, the respondent thereafter worked in that capacity for more than six months. The respondent’s claim was that he was supposed to have been appointed a substantive Human Resource Manager in terms... More
The brief facts of the matter are that National Employment Council Arbitrator M Mpango (arbitrator) issued an award on 21 January 2011, in which the parties were cited as;
“AGRIFOODS (PVT) LTD EMPLOYEES-Claimants
And
AGRIFOODS(PVT) LTD MANAGEMENT-Respondents”
On 18 December 2014, the arbitrator amended his initial award, by changing the citation of the respondent to AGRIFOODS (PVT) LTD. He removed reference to AGRIFOODS “MANAGEMENT”. This amendment was upon an application brought by the claimants, which application was opposed by the respondent. The resultant award, titled “PATENT AMENDMENT OF ARBITRAL AWARD”, is the subject of this appeal. More
I heard this application on 7 March 2022. I delivered an ex tempore judgment in which I dismissed it with costs. On 4 April, 2022 the second respondent wrote requesting written reasons for my decision. My reasons are these:
The applicant, one Agson Mafuta Chioza (“Chioza”) sued the Minister of Lands, Agriculture, Water & Rural Resettlement (“the Minister”) and one Josiah Chikowore (“Chikowore”) who are respectively the first and second respondents in this application. He moved me to, among other relief, direct that:
i) the agreement of a farm for a farm exchange between the Minister and him is binding;... More
This is an application for review of the decision of the second Respondent who made an order in favour of the 1st Respondent in a case of an alleged unfair labour practice.
The basic grounds of the review are that the 2nd Respondent in his capacity as an arbitrator in a matter between the 1st Respondent and one Wassi, erred by exceeding his jurisdiction when he substituted Wassi with the Applicant as the Respondent in the matter which was before him. He did so well knowing that the matter before him had been filed as a matter between Wassi and... More
This is an appeal against confirmatory proceedings conducted by the Labour Court on 8 September 2017 in terms of s 93(5) of the Labour Act. At the end of the proceedings the Labour Court made a number of alterations to the draft ruling issued by the Labour Officer. More
In this urgent application for a provisional order the applicant prays for relief as set out as follows;
FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
1. That the stay of execution is hereby granted
2. Respondents shall pay costs of suit on an attorney-client scale. More
The Respondent was employed as a Captain. He was initially suspended for an alleged misconduct on the 18th of November, 2008. He was re-suspended by the Appellant on the 5th of December 2008 for three alleged acts of misconduct namely;
a) conduct on omission inconsistent with the fulfilment of the express or implied conditions of his contract.
b) absence from work for a period of five (5) or more working days without leave or more working days with leave or reasonable cause or alternatively;
c) habitual and substantial neglect of duty.” More
There has been a delay in the handing down of this judgement which was prepared in 2017. I do hereby extend my apologies to the parties.
INTRODUCTION
The appeal was noted against an arbitral award handed down on the 30th July, 2015 per the Honourable Dr T.N Sambureni, Arbitrator. The appeal is opposed.
BACKGROUND FACTS
The Respondent was employed by the Appellant as a Senior Manager – Finance. On 16 December, 2009 the Appellant through its Human Resources Manager wrote to the Respondent notifying him of its intention to retrench him. More
