On 27 November 2019 we dismissed this appeal in its entirety and indicated that our reasons for dismissal would follow, these are they.
On 10 April 2019, the appellant appeared on charges of contravening s 131 (1) (a) as read with s 131 (2) (e) of the Criminal Code for unlawful entry into premises in aggravating circumstances, he was convicted after a full trial and sentenced to 36 months imprisonment with 6 months imprisonment being suspended for 5 years on the usual conditions of future good behaviour, a further 12 months were further suspended on conditions of restitution. When the... More
This is an application for rescission of judgment and upliftment of bar. The application is opposed by 1st and 2nd respondents. After hearing argument in this matter I reserved judgment. These are the reasons for my ruling in this matter. More
This is an application for condonation for late noting of an application for confirmation of a draft ruling.
The applicant is a Labour officer. On 20 August 2018, he handed down adraft ruling in a dispute between Gerald Kambadza and Zimbabwe Leaf Tobacco (first and second respondents respectively).
The background to the dispute is that the 1st respondent was charged at the work place with an act of misconduct. It was alleged that the 1st respondent was in the habit of absconding from work without authority from management. It was further alleged that the 1st respondent had absconded from his... More
In this matter, the applicant came before me to seek confirmation of a ruling and order made in a matter involving the respondent and one Kennedy Chinosengwa (the claimant).
Before the applicant, the claimant was appealing against an unfair dismissal. A conciliation hearing was held and it was unsuccessful. More
This is an application by a labour officer. It is for the confirmation of the officer’s draft ruling. It is in terms of section 93 (5a) (a) and (b) of the Labour Act, [Chapter 28:01] (the Act). It is opposed by the 1st to the 23rd respondents. it is supported by the 24th respondent in whose favour the ruling is. More
This is an application in terms of Section 93 (5) (a) of Labour Amendment Act No 5 of 2015 for the confirmation of the ruling made by the labour officer in a matter pitting MthandazaSibanda and Stratia Beverages. The argument giving rise to the decision by the labour officer was around issues that the employer had deducted certain moneys from the employee’s salary outside what the law provides for. It was also accused of reducing the employee’s salary unilaterally. More
This is an application for the confirmation of a draft ruling by the applicant in terms of Section 93 of the Labour Act [ Chapter 28:01] (the Act). The applicant in casu presided over the quantification of amounts claimed by the employees from their employer, the 1st responded. More
This is an application for Labour Officer Lilford Nhandara that was made on 1st November 2019. In his ruling the Labour Officer ordered the first Respondent to pay the 2nd Respondent (claimant) a total sumof USD883 299-63 arising from damages in lieu of reinstatement and cash in lieu of leave days within 60 days from this order.
The brief history of the matter is that this application is coming to this court after the draft ruling by the Labour Officer was confirmed by this court under judgment LC/H/426/18. In this judgment Honourable Judge Kudya ordered as follows; More
In this matter applicant has applied for an order dismissing the first respondent’s claim in case No. HC 1378/15 against applicant in terms of r 75 of the High Court Rules 1971 on the basis that the first respondent’s claim is frivolous and vexatious. The applicant cited the first respondent and Saltana Enterprises Pvt Ltd as joint respondents. The third respondent was joined as a third respondent as a result of third respondent having been joined as a third defendant by first respondent (the plaintiff in HC 13781/15). More
This was an application for rescission of a default judgment which l heard on 18 May 2017 and dismissed with costs. I delivered the judgment ex tempore and I have now been requested for the written reasons. More
Applicants sought the setting aside and nullification of the last will and testament of Pythias Nyamushanya executed at Mutare on 29 November 2006. First applicant sought to be declared the sole beneficiary of the matrimonial property namely Stand 1716 Umtali Township also known as No 7 Bain Drive Morningside, Mutare and an order that the other properties in the last will and testament for the late Pythias Nyamushanya be shared equally amongst all the beneficiaries named in the will including fourth and fifth respondents herein. More
One Jianqiang Jheng issued out summons against the defendant on 3 May 2016 claiming $17 204 being arrear rentals for certain mining equipment leased to the defendant under an agreement dated 8 December 2013 and extending to 8 January 2014. Plaintiff alleged that defendant did not relinquish the mining equipment after the termination of the agreement and is liable for holding over damages at the rate of $700 per month, interest at the prescribed rate, collection commission and legal practitioner and client costs. More
The plaintiff’s claim against the defendants jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, is for a refund of US$10 000-00 an amount which the plaintiff paid to the defendants as an initial deposit towards a commitment fee in the sum of $35 000-00. More
This is an appeal against a determination by the Respondents’ Chief Executive Officer sitting in his capacity as an Appeals Authority. The determination which was handed down on 3rd of June, 2020, in its operative part, dismissed the appeal noted by the now Appellant against the determination of the disciplinary committee. Secondly, the appeals authority upheld a cross appeal by the now Respondent, thereby setting aside the lesser penalty imposed by the respondents’ Disciplinary Committee and substituting it with a heavier penalty of dismissal from respondent’s employment with immediate effect. The Respondent was also directed to recover from the Appellant... More
The appellant raised two preliminary issues before the matter proceeded into the merits. Firstly that the respondent filed its notice of response out of time and therefore was barred in terms of Rule 19 3(b) of the Labour Court Rules (“the rules”). Secondly that the said notice of response was not properly before the court as it was not made on the proper form LC2 prescribed by the rules. The appellant relied on Rule 19 which deals with failure to file heads of argument instead of Rule 22 that deals with failure to file a notice of response within the... More
