This is an application for the setting aside of the judgment given in default of the applicants in Case No. HC 11164/17. The judgment was given on 15 May 2018. The application is opposed by the first, second and fourth respondents. In addition to contesting the application on the merits the respondents took certain objections in limine which the court would need to consider first. However, a consideration of the grounds of objection requires that the background facts be outlined first as they are relevant to the determination of the objections in limine. The following are the material facts which... More
This matter was initialed set down for hearing on 28 May 2010. When the matter was called I requested counsel to address the issue of the legality of the transaction between the parties given the existence of two agreements with differing purchase prices. Counsel duly furnished supplementary heads of argument on the issue and I am grateful to both for their diligence. More
Appellant was employed by the Respondent as its Concentrator Manager. Allegations of misconduct were levelled against him it being alleged that he had wrongfully and unlawfully made personal purchases using the company system without the requisite authority to do so. He was brought before a Disciplinary Committee which found him guilty and recommended his dismissal. An appeal to the Appeals Committee did not meet the desired results as that Committee upheld the decision of the Disciplinary Committee. Appellant has approached this Court for relief. More
Applicant applied to this Court for the review of his dismissal from employment by Respondent. The application was made in terms of sections 92 EE and 89(1) of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01. Respondent opposed the application. More
Appellant (employee) appealed to this Court against his dismissal from employment by respondent (employer). The appeal was made in terms of Section 92D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 hereafter called the Act. The employer opposed the appeal. More
The appellant was employed by the respondent as a processing officer and was stationed at Parirenyatwa Hospital Sub-office.
The appellant was charged with misconduct in terms of Section 44 (2) (a) as read with paragraph 3 of the 1st schedule of the Public Service Regulations SI 1 of 2000; failure to perform any work or duty properly assigned, a failure to obey a lawful instructions, including circulars, instructions or standing orders issued by the commission, the treasury or the accounting officer, the specific allegations were that she had improperly completed a notice of Birth of a child (BDI) forms in... More
This is an application for quantification of back pay and damages in lieu of reinstatement. On 17 June 2015 this court allowed an appeal by the applicant in default of the respondent’s appearance. The court ordered the respondent to reinstate the applicant to her original position without loss of salary and benefits with effect from the date of unlawful dismissal. In the event that reinstatement was no longer tenable the respondent was to pay damages in lieu of reinstatement the quantum of which was to be agreed upon by the parties failing which either party could approach the court for... More
This is an apposed application for review in which the applicant seeks an order in the following terms;
“IT IS ORDERED THAT:-
1. The Distribution Plan authorised on the 3rd of March 2009 be and is hereby set aside.
2. That the inventory for the immovable properties of the deceased is hereby amended to include property No 10 Lomagundi Road, Avondale Harare.
3. The Master of the High Court is hereby authorised to distribute the Estate of the late Edmond Gonese in accordance with s 68F of the Administration of Estates Act [Cap 6:11] .
4. First respondent is to... More
On 14 November 2017 plaintiff issued summons for the eviction of the first and second defendants and all those claiming occupation through them from a piece of land known as subdivision 4 of Lot 1 of Buena Vista located in Goromonzi. More
This is an ex-parteapplication for an urgent hearing of an appeal filed on 21 February 2014. Applicants were employed by Respondent. It is alleged that Respondent sought to unilaterally transfer them to National Eye Security (Pvt) Ltd without compliance with section 16 of the Labour Act. The transfer was challenged before an Arbitrator who quashed it and ordered Respondent to reinstate Appellants or pay damages in lieu of reinstatement. Respondent appealed but the appeal was dismissed with costs on a higher scale on
11 July 2012. More
This judgment addresses the points in limine raised by the appellant and by the respondent at the commencement of the hearing of the main merits of the appeal. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the respondent company’s disciplinary hearing committee which dismissed the appellant from its employment on allegations that he had contravened the industry Code of Conduct, in particular that he had wilfully disobeyed a lawful order. More
The plaintiff issued summons against the defendants claiming the following:
(a) The setting aside of the agreement of sale between the first defendant and second defendant;
(b) An order directing the third defendant to transfer the rights, title and interest in Flat 196 Block 40 Odzi Flats into the plaintiff’s name; and
(c) Costs of suit against the first and second defendants jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved. More
