On 12 December 2024, this Court issued a Disposal Order determining that Applicant’s intended collective job action was illegal and that it should be discontinued forthwith. Applicant is dissatisfied with that decision and intends to approach the Supreme Court for relief. This is therefore an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in terms of section 92 F (2) of the Labour Act, (Chapter 28:01). More
This is an application for confirmation of a ruling by a labour officer. The application is in terms of section 93(5a) and (5b) of the Labour Act, [Chapter 28:01]. (The Act). The application arises from a ruling where the 2nd respondent claimed that he had constructively been unlawfully dismissed. He sought to be paid damages thereof and terminal benefits. The claim of constructive dismissal was dismissed. However he was awarded terminal benefits of payment for leave days. Although he had claimed 43, 46 leave days he was granted 33, 95 as said to be admitted by the 1st respondent, the... More
Appellant was employed by the Respondent as its Managing Director. In 2018, the Auditor General was requested to carry out an audit and forensic investigation in the operations of ZESA Holdings and its subsidiary companies. The Auditor General in turn contracted PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) to carry out the audit. The latter made a report to the Auditor General upon completion of the audit in January 2019. The audit report made certain findings and recommendations. In respect of Respondent’s books of accounts, it was stated that certain transactions had been made irregularly and it was recommended that Appellant be charged with misconduct.... More
After hearing submissions from both parties, I delivered an ex tempore judgment in which I dismissed the application. These are the full reasons for the ex tempore judgment.
This is an application for rescission of judgment. It arises from a judgment handed down by this court (per MAKAMURE J) on 9 August 2019, in terms of which an application for confirmation of a draft ruling made by the 2nd respondent was dismissed. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award issued on 3 June 2015 in favour of the respondents. The respondents were employed by the appellant in various capacities. They were being paid wages below the stipulated amount resulting in them referring the matter to conciliation. The matter could not be settled at conciliation and was subsequently referred to arbitration. The arbitrator ruled that each of the respondents was underpaid by an amount of $4 495.86. Appellant was ordered to pay a total of $13 487.58 for the period June 2012 to June 2014.
Aggrieved, appellant noted the present appeal. Grounds... More
The Appellant was employed by Concorde Clothing (1975). On 6 September, 2011, the Chief Executive Officer of Concorde, Mr Patel was doing his routine visit of the operations at Bonar Industries and he saw the Appellant sitted while his colleagues were working. The Chief Executive Officer asked him why he was not working; the Appellant did not respond; he remained sitted. After a moment, he stood up, put his hands in his pocket and walked away without saying anything. More
The brief background of this matter which is generally common cause is that, applicant was in 2nd respondent’s employ as a Chief Security Officer. On the 15 July, 2020 applicant was suspended from service for contravening Section 4 (a) of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct), Regulations 2006, (Statutory Instrument 15 of 2006) hereinafter referred to as the Model Code. More
On the 11th April, 2019 applicant issued a draft ruling in the matter between ERIC MASHUMBA and ZIMBABWE FARMERS UNION. In the ruling, applicant ordered 1st Respondent to pay 2nd Respondent an amount of $9 120,00 as underpayment of salaries. More
The factual background of this matter which is generally common cause is that:
- Appellant was in 2nd respondent’s employ under the 1st respondent and his duty among others was to conduct road tests on holders of Learners licenses and if the holder proves that he is competent to drive, issue him/her with a certificate of competency.
- There are certain tests that are specific to certain classes of vehicles and are not applicable to other classes, namely the 3 point turn is conducted on class 4 and not class 2 road tests.
- On the 27th August, 2019 appellant... More
This is an application for review of a determination made by the Designated Agent, E. Machikiti on the 13th of July, 2020. The application is premised on Section 92 EE of the Labour Act [Cap 28:01]. The application is opposed. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Respondent Disciplinary Authority which decision resulted in the dismissal of Appellant from employment with effect from after duty on the 6th of December, 2019. The appeal is opposed. More
There has been an inordinate delay in the hand down of this judgment. My most sincere apologies to the parties involved. This is an application for confirmation of a draft ruling made on the 27th February 2017 by the Applicant in her capacity as Designated Agent for the NEC Welfare and Educational Institutions. The application is premised on the provisions of Section 95 (5a) and (b) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] hereafter referred to as (the Act.) More
At the conclusion of submissions made at the hearing of this matter, I gave an ex tempore judgment in which I partially granted the application for review. The following are the full reasons for the ex tempore judgment. More
This is an application for late noting of review of the alleged dismissal from employment by the respondent. It is alleged that they were dismissed from employment in January 2011. There is no decision by the Tribunal to be reviewed. There was no hearing that was conducted at the work place. They were just informed by the headmaster that their services were no longer required by the school. There is no decision to be reviewed in this case. Parties should follow other channels, to redress their grievance. More
This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of this Court dated 15 February 2014.
The respondent has raised a point in limine by stating that the applicant is not properly before this Court as he has not complied with Rule 14 as read with section 89 (2) (d) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] Form LC1. More
