The complaints set out above relate to the labour officer’s (L.O.) ruling and his conduct of the proceedings before him. It is evidently necessary to hear the labour officer’s comments regarding his impugned conduct. For him to comment he has to be cited as a party. It is a longstanding practice, if not a legal requirement, to cite an official whose conduct is condemned. This allows him to comment on the allegations and thus give the adjudicator a fuller picture of the case before him. For that reason I consider that the point in limine was well taken. More
The 30 July, 2018 election was, in many respects, different from elections which preceded it. The election atmosphere was good. People interacted well during the campaigning period. They accommodated each others’ view points. They campaigned freely. They exercised their democratic right to vote, on voting day, without any hitches. More
At the hearing of this matter, preliminary issues were raised by both parties it is this court’s intention to deal with the issue first of whether or not the appeal raises any questions of law.
The respondent stated that no points of law were raised in the grounds of appeal. More
The plaintiff, as Chief Executive Officer of Murehwa District Council, issued summons on 15 June 2023, claiming a sum of US$500 000.00 as damages from the defendant for alleged defamation. The defendant having failed to enter an appearance to defend, the plaintiff applied for default judgment in motion court. He was requested on 19 and 26 July to attend to his affidavit of evidence and to justify the amount claimed. He filed supplementary affidavits. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award in terms of which it was ordered that the dispute between the appellant and the respondent be heard de novo. More
Appellant worked for Respondent as a Security Officer. On 30th June 2015 he was dismissed from employment for misconduct. He appealed against the dismissal to Respondent’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO). By letter dated 9th July 2015 the CEO dismissed the appeal. Appellant then appealed to this Court. Respondent opposed the appeal. More
At the commencement of the trial in this matter, I meromotu raised the issue of whether or not the jurisdiction of this court has not been ousted by the provisions of s 89(6) of the Labour Act [Cap 28:01] (“the Act”) in matters brought before me for determination. More
An application was brought before me in terms of section 3 and 4 of the Administrative Justice Act [Chapter 10:28] (“the AJA”) and, alternatively, under the common law. The application was filed on 21 May 2019, and was heard on 20 May 2022. Applicant seeks the setting aside of the first respondent’s decision which confirmed the sale of his property in execution of a judgment debt. The property in question is 1 Holwood Lane, Umwinsdale, Glenlorne, Harare (“the property”), and the decision Sheriff’s decision is being challenged on four grounds. The first is that the property was sold for an... More
This is an application for the late filing of an application for review. Following a determination in the labour dispute between the employer and the employee the employee breached the legal requirement pertaining to his filing of a review application. It is against this background that the employee seeks to have this court condone his breach and grant him a chance to be heard in his review matter. The employer is opposed to the grant of such condonation and persists that this court decline such indulgence. More
Respondent filed an application for rescission of judgment in the name of its Human Resources Manager on the 9 September 2013. Applicant duly filed its response to that application on the 8 January 2014 and served it on respondent’s legal practitioners of record in the application for quantification which is also before this court.
The application for rescission of judgment has not been set down for hearing in terms of Rule 21 of this Court’s Rules S.I. 59 of 2006. More
d) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01].
The factual background to the matter is as follows:
The applicant was employed by the respondent as a Sales and Marketing Manager. The applicant fell ill and had to proceed on statutory sick leave. After the expiry of the statutory leave days, a qualified medical practitioner having recommended retirement on medical grounds, the applicant appeared before the ZESA Medical Board. He appeared on two separate occasions before the Board. What happened at the Medical Board is subject to different interpretations by both parties. The applicant alleges that on the two separate occasions the... More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court handed down on 9 May 2019 which awarded defamation damages to the respondent in the sum of US$16 000,00. More
