In this appeal both parties raised points in limine. The parties had suggested that they could argue the points in limine as well as the merits. I objected to that and pointed out that the law requires that points in limine be disposed of first or else what is the point in raising them. Theparties’ suggestion was probably in keeping with the apparent lack of seriousness in the way these points in limine were dealt with in arguments as well as the lethargic manner in attempting to bring closure to this case.
The present appeal arose from a hearing following... More
This is an application for registration of an order of the Labour Court in terms of section 92B (3) of the Labour Court Act (Chapter 28:01). Applicant contends that, the registration of an order obtained in the Labour Court dated 20th October 2017, per KUDYA J is necessary in order to give effect to the order for the purposes of enforcement. The application is opposed.
The order sought in the draft order is in the following terms:
“1. The court order issued by the Labour Court of Zimbabwe sitting at Harare on the 20th day of October 2017 under case... More
This is an application for consolidation of LC/H/923/15 and LC/H/875/14 the 2 being appeals made against the respondent employer where in one case the employee was dismissed from work and the other was given a final warning following allegations of breaching the employment Code of Conduct.
The argument advanced for consolidation is that the witnesses who were used on the matters were the same and that the same set of facts is what birthed the allegation faced by the employees.
Consolidation is opposed on the basis that it serves no meaningful purpose since at the shop floor level the matters... More
The applicant was employed by the Respondent when allegations for alleged acts of misconduct were brought against him.
The employer had alleged that the applicant had endorsed wrong figures to reflect stocks brought back by the driver when the actual stock was less. The figures were shown, after a physical countto be less than what the applicant had endorsed. The applicant was found guilty and dismissed. The Works Council upheld the dismissal. More
This is an application to compel the respondent to provide further particulars. The respondent issued summons against the applicant on 4 September 2013 for payment of $37 688-40 being balance outstanding on the purchase of timber. The contract of sale was said to have been signed by the parties on 16 December 2010. The respondent also claimed damages in the sum of $183 782-02 for the complete destruction of the timber plantation by a veld fire which was allegedly exacerbated by the dry timber cut and left lying in the plantation by the applicant. The respondent also claimed interest and... More
In this appeal the appellant was dismissed from the respondent’s employ following disciplinary proceedings. He was aggrieved by the dismissal. He appeals to this court on the ground that:
“The Board misdirected itself in holding that the appellant was responsible for the acts stated in the charge sheet.”
The charge sheet referred in the ground of appeal does not form part of the record of proceedings. The respondent’s legal practitioner was not able to supply the charge sheet in question. However, paragraph 2.0 of minutes of the hearing held on 26 and 29 October details the charges which the appellant... More
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
