On 10 May 2018 the applicant sold to the first and second respondents [“the respondents”] a piece of land from a certain housing development project by him in Good Hope Township of Harare. The sale was in terms of a written agreement. All the usual terms were agreed upon, including the purchase price and the mode of paying it. In terms of the agreement, the deposit was to be paid to the seller as cash upon signing. The monthly instalments would also be paid in cash within the periods as specified. Another clause in the agreement stipulated that all the... More
: This is an application to review the decision to cancel applicant’s premises and person’s licences by respondent in its statutory capacity as the issuing authority. The facts surrounding this dispute are virtually common cause. More
The parties to this divorce action got married on 16 August 1996 at Bulawayo, Zimbabwe. Their union was blessed with three children all of whom are still minors. The plaintiff now seeks from this court a decree of divorce, custody of the three minor children of the marriage and distribution of the matrimonial estate. In justifying his prayer he avers in his Declaration that his marriage to the defendant has irretrievably broken down. He also avers that there are no reasonable prospects of its restoration to normalcy as the defendant has, during the subsistence of the marriage, committed acts of... More
The background facts of this matter are that the Applicant was employed by the Respondent as a Forklift Driver. Allegations of misconduct were raised against him and he was found guilty by a Disciplinary Committee set up in terms of the relevant Code of Conduct. He appealed to the Appeals Committee which upheld the decision by the Disciplinary Committee More
Applicants applied to this Court for the reinstatement of an abandoned matter. The application is provided for by Rule 36 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. Respondent opposed the application. More
As a result of a motor vehicles accident that happened between plaintiff and defendant on 27 June 2008, plaintiff caused the issuance of summons against defendant claiming:
(a) US$52 000.00 being damages for bodily injury and US$2 000.00 for medical expenses.
(b) Interest at the prescribed rate on the sum claimed from the date of the summons to the date of full payment.
(c) Costs of suit. More
The brief background to this matter is that the applicant and first respondent were duly nominated as candidates to contest on 23 August 2023 for the seat of Ward 35 Mazowe Rural District Council. It is the applicant’s averment that the first respondent was not qualified to be nominated as, though he is an owner of land held under an agreement of lease being Plot No. 13, Danbury Park Farm in Mazowe Rural District Council, he owed Mazowe Rural District Council in unpaid levies. The amount owed is said to be four hundred and twenty United States Dollars and this... More
CHIVIZHE, J;
The matter was placed before me as an application for quantification of damages pursuant to an order granted by this Court in case LC/H/705/13 which order dismissed respondent’s appeal and upheld an order by the NEC Appeals Committee dated 24th March 2014 which order directing reinstatement. The Court order issued by the Labour Court did not award damages as an alternative for reinstatement. This was clearly contrary to Section 89(2)(c)(iii) of the LabourAct [Cap 28:01] which requires that whenever the Court considers reinstatement as the more appropriate remedy and grants it the employer must still be given an... More
The applicants were employed by Martindale Catholic School in different capacities. Sometime in June 2021, the respondent purported to retrench the applicants allegedly without following lawful retrenchment procedures in terms of Section 12C (1)(a) (i) (ii) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] (the Act). The applicants challenged their retrenchment arguing that the process was flawed. The respondent proceeded with the process regardless and paid the applicants their retrenchment packages. More
The appellants were employed in various capacities. They were retrenched on 28 July 2021. The appellants challenged the retrenchment on the basis that the retrenchment process was unlawful as they were retrenched by a non-existent entity. Martindale Catholic Primary School which retrenched them was not their employer and it had no right to retrench them. Martindale Primary School was registered under the name; Little Children of our Blessed Lady Sisters. It was argued that Little Children of our Blessed Lady Sisters ought to have retrenched them and not Martindale Catholic Primary School. More
This appeal is totally devoid of any merit.
The appellant is aggrieved by the decision of the court a quoin granting an interpleader application in favour of the second respondent.
The appellant had entered into an agreement with the first respondent in terms which the two were to exchange certain beasts. In order to satisfy his side of the bargain, the first respondent fraudulently passed over to the appellant three beasts, the property of the second respondent. More
At the onset of the review application the applicant raised the point in limine stating that there is no opposition to the review application on account of the fact that the opposing affidavit was deposed to by a person who did not file with the court a board resolution indicating that he is authorised to depose to the affidavit. More
Applicant states that she was placed on indefinite suspension if one has regard to the time it took the respondent to conclude her matters. It is her view that such conduct was in breach of section 6(2) (b) of the National Code which is imperative that the disciplinary proceedings if commenced should be concluded within 14 days. In response to this the respondent argued that applicant was the author of her own misfortune in that she delayed in availing the documents which were needed to conclude the audit. A reading of the record however shows that the whole delay could... More
This is an application for confirmation of the provisional order granted on 28 February 2020. The interim relief which was granted in that provisional order was for stay of execution of the judgment granted in favour of the respondents in Case No. HC 2954/18 pending the return date. The final order sought is for a declaration that the payment of RTGS$452 000.00 by the applicant fully discharged the applicant’s obligations under the judgment in HC 2954/18 and for an order for the release of any property which might or could have been attached in execution of that judgment. Applicants also... More
