Respondent worked for Appellant. He was guilty of misconduct. He was dismissed from employment. In due course he appealed to the NEC for the Clothing Industry. Through a letter dated 29th August 2011 the NEC relayed its determination. In terms thereof the NEC remitted the matter to Appellant for a fresh hearing. Appellant was aggrieved by the turn of events. It appealed to this Court against the NEC’s determination. More
This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, against the decision of this Court, where it allowed the appeal by the employee in a matter where the N.E.C. had confirmed his dismissal by the Respondent/employer. More
This is an application for interim relief. It is opposed. The applicant dismissed the respondent. The respondent appealed to the relevant National Employment Council (NEC). The NEC found that the applicant had not followed the provisions of the relevant code. The applicant did not suspend the respondent at the commencement of the disciplinary process. The NEC therefore remitted the matter back to the applicant for the matter to be heard afresh. That decision aggrieved the applicant prompting it to appeal that decision. Before the finalisation of that appeal which has been noted with this Court, the applicant is asking the... More
This is an appeal against the determination of the National Employment Council for the Clothing and Industry dated17 February 2014. The determination is couched as follows:
“In light of the above, the Appeals Board considered it fair to uphold and award the proposals from the appellant as they were calculated from date of dismissal to date of NEC determination and nothing more. Thus the company is being ordered to pay, the appellant USD11 458-30 …”
The grounds of appeal that are before this court are as follows:
(i) The National Employment Council erred at law by awarding damages without hearing... More
This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of this court that was handed down on 18 December 2015. In its judgment this court upheld the points in limine that had been raised by the respondent and dismissed the appeal. More
After hearing this matter I issued an order in terms of the draft. The record was then mislaid resulting in the applicant construction a dummy file so that an order could be issued. The respondent despite having been served with the application and having entered opposition failed to appear at the hearing. In view of the relief being sought I found myself unable to grant an order in the absence of argument on the legality of the order being sought. I therefore sought the assistance of Mr Zhou specifically to advise the court whether or not the form of relief... More
This is an application for the setting aside of a judgment given in default of the applicant in case number HC 864/11. The judgment was given on 26 May 2011. The applicant states that he became aware of the default judgment on 25 July 2011 when he was served with the notice of attachment and removal of goods by the Deputy Sheriff. The instant application was instituted on 23 August 2011. More
On the day of the hearing of this matter the parties opted not make any oral submissions. They proposed that I make a determination on the basis of the papers filed of record. I obliged. At any rate, the applicant’s answering affidavit and heads of argument, although having been issued earlier, were at that time still to find their way into the court record. More
On 28 September 2018, I removed the chamber application from the roll. The applicant has not sought the reasons for my decisions to remove the matter from the roll but has written letters seeking to convince the court to revisit the matter and grant the chamber application despite his none compliance with the court directives. The reasons for the removal of the matter are outlined herein. More
: On 18 September 2018 the applicant filed a court application for review seeking the following relief spelt out in the draft order:
1. The decision of the first respondent in which she made an order for the rescission of default judgment in court case number 127/18 in favour of second respondent be and is set aside.
2. The application of second respondent for rescission of default judgment be remitted for rehearing before a different magistrate.
On 28 September 2018 the second respondent filed its opposing papers. More
Mr James Stewart Drynan (Applicant) filed a court application for review seeking the following relief.
“Having heard the applicant in person and documents filed of record, it is ordered that:
1. The decision of the 1st respondent in civil case 1150/18 be and is set aside.
2. The second respondent’s summons in civil case 1150/18 be and is hereby dismissed.” More
This is a bail application pending trial. The applicants are charged with the crime of contravening s 45(1)(a) as read with s 128(1)(a) of Parks and Wildlife Act [Chapter 20:14] as amended by General Laws Amendment No. 5 (148/11) “Hunt a specially protected animal (Rhinoceros). It being alleged that on 14 July 2022 and at Bubye Valley Conservancy, the applicants one or both of them unlawfully hunted and killed a black rhinoceros which is a protected species using a 315 rifle in contravention of the Act. More
On 23 May 2005, the respondent issued summons out of Marondera Magistrates’ court. Her claim against the defendant, as it appears on the face of the summons, is recorded as “sharing property”. An affidavit was attached to the summons, curiously titled in my view as “Applicant’s supporting affidavit (Property Sharing)”. In the affidavit, the respondent alleged that she was in an unregistered customary union with the appellant and that during the subsistence of the union, the parties had acquired certain household goods and effects. She gave the estimate value of each item that she alleged the parties acquired. She further... More
This judgment is in respect of two applications which were heard together. The two applications are between the same parties. Case number HCH 6178/23 is an application for condonation of late filing of an application for rescission of a default judgment that was granted against the applicants in case number HC 280/18. The second application, HCH 6602/23, is the application for rescission of judgment to which the condonation being sought in HCH 6178/23 relates. The two applications were filed on different dates. The condonation application was filed first. The parties are the same in both cases. Also, the facts relied... More
This is an urgent chamber application in which the applicants seek a Provisional Order in the following terms:
“TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
That you show cause to this Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms:-
1. That first, second and fourth respondents and/or their agents shall not interfere in any manner whatsoever with applicants’ possession of Glencairn Mine or the assets thereat
INTERIM RELIEF GRANTED
Pending the determination of this matter, the applicants are granted the following relief:-
2. That first, second and fourth respondents be and are hereby ordered to remove... More
