At the commencement of the appeal before this Court, Respondent raised two points inlimine.The points were that;
1. Appellants were barred for failure to file their Heads of Argument timeously; and
2. The matter was resjudicata. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award issued on 19 November 2010, in terms of which the retrenchment of the appellants was held to have been lawfully done. More
In the interests of justice the court invoked rule 26 and condoned the flouting of the time lines and consequently ordered that the matter be set down and be argued on the merits. Dissatisfied by this order the applicant employer has now applied to this court to grant it leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The basis for the application is that the Labour Court erred to invoke rule 26 mero motu and to order that the matter now be heard on the merits. Its main argument is that there was no way both parties could have been said... More
On the 19th November 2021 this Court issued a judgment in terms of which it ordered respondent to reinstate applicant’s grade (after unlawful demotion) and pay damages arising from the demotion. The parties engaged each other but failed to settle the amount of damages payable. Then on 2nd September 2024 applicant filed the present application for quantification of the damages by this Court. Respondent opposed the application. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award. In terms of Section 98(10) of the Labour Act, [Chapter 28:01] appeals such as this one must be premised on a point of law. More
This is an application for the confirmation of a ruling by a Labour Officer in the mater between Taurai Mukaki and Med Farms. Med Farms is opposed to the grant of confirmation relief and Mukaki supports the grant of such. Two issues are contested that is the issue of jurisdiction and the issue of calculus of damages due to Mukaki. More
On 30 August 2005, the plaintiff issued summons against the defendants, praying for an order declaring them to be the lawful owners of certain immovable property in Glen Norah, Harare. The plaintiffs also sought an order declaring the cancellation by the third respondent of the cession of rights to them in the property by the estate of the late Jusa Chipira null and void. The summons was duly served on the defendants, neither of whom entered an appearance to defend the action. In due course, the requisite dies induciae having expired, the plaintiff filed an application for default judgment in... More
On 13 October 2018, the parties contracted their marriage in terms of the Marriage Act [Chapter 5:11]. The marriage was blessed with two children, Kabelo Lenny Mashanda born on 21 July 2016 and Khanyiso Kelton Mashanda born on 25 November 2019. On 13 July 2020, the plaintiff issued summons for the dissolution of the marriage claiming a decree of divorce and a division of the matrimonial assets. In his declaration he stated that the parties were in the process of acquiring a 300m² residential stand through the City of Harare, that he had paid an initial deposit and made a... More
The hearing commenced with the applicant making an application for the uplifting of a bar. The applicant was barred for failure to file heads of argument in terms of the rules. The application for the upliftment of the bar was opposed. Accepting that the failure to file heads was due to a junior legal practitioner leaving the practice of the applicant’s legal practitioners without proper handover, I decided that it was in the interests of justice for me to grant the application. I granted the application with costs on a legal practitioners and client scale. More
This is an application for quantification of benefits following an order by this court that;
“Applicant is to be reinstated to his former position without loss of salary and benefits.
In the event that reinstatement is no longer possible, Respondent is ordered to pay damages in lieu of reinstatement ----“
Respondent opted to reinstate Appellant. Appellant has since been reinstated into his former position. Appellant was paid his backpay. Allowances were not paid. Applicant is claiming $26 266.00 in respect of accommodation, mileage and lunch. Applicant also prayed for costs of suit. More
The applicant is a former employee of the respondent. He was charged with acts of misconduct. This was in terms of provisions of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) ,Statutory Instrument 15 of 2006 (S.I.15/06).Disciplinary proceedings were conducted . He was acquitted of those charges. The respondent was aggrieved by the outcome. It appealed internally. The appeal succeeded with the Appeals Authority overturning the acquittal, finding the applicant guilty and penalizing him with dismissal. He was aggrieved by that outcome and has filed an application for review. More
Family law -Chamber application for guardianship - This matter was placed before me in chambers. The applicant seeks an order that he be awarded guardianship of his almost seventeen year old grandchild K. N born on the 4th of November 2001. More
The facts of this matter are not in dispute. They are that the appellant was in the employ of the respondent as a back-splitter at its Masvingo abattoir with effect from May 2009. He worked without incident until 17 February 2014 when he was suspended from duty for taking liquid soap to clean his work clothes that is his work helmet, gumboots and apron,
at the employer’s premises. More
Applicant and respondent are husband and wife having married in terms of the Marriage Act [Chapter 5:11] on 27 September 1997. The marriage was blessed with two children who are now adults. During the subsistence of the marriage, they acquired a property known as Lot 4 of Chimwemwe of subdivision A Kingsmead of Borrowdale Estate measuring 4212 square metres ( the property). Applicant says the property was acquired by his optional shares from his previous employment. The property was subdivided and stand 916 Borrowdale Township of Lot 4 of Chimwemwe of Subdivision A of Kingsmead Extension of Borrowdale Estate measuring... More
This is an appeal against both conviction and sentence. Appellant was convicted of theft of a motor vehicle in contravention of section 113 (1) (a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23], following a full trial after pleading not guilty. He was sentenced to 36 months imprisonment, with 12 months suspended for 5 years, on condition that, he does not commit similar offences involving dishonesty and theft, upon which if convicted will be sentenced to an imprisonment term without an option of a fine. An effective 24 months jail term remained. More
