At the center of the dispute of the applicant and the first respondent (“the parties”) is a piece of land which is situated in the district of Salisbury called Stand 223, Marimba Park Township, Marimba Park, Harare (“the property”). It is 2011 square meters in extent. It is held under Deed of Transfer 3607/21. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the respondent’s appeals committee to dismiss the appellants. The first appellant was employed by the respondent as a buyer whilst the second appellant was employed as a stores controller. On 18 March 2016 the appellants faced allegations of breaching the respondent’s code of conduct. More
The adage, “rest in peace”, expressed as R.I.P is often used when a loved one passes on. I have often wondered whether it is always appropriate in all instances given the nature of disputes that will be simmering during the life time of the deceased which often turn into an all-out-battle after death. In the process, estates are not finalised in the expected six months period. As a matter of fact, some estates take years to be finalised as in this present matter in which the deceased passed away on the 21st of March 2001. Letters of administration were issued... More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award, the grounds of appeal being that:-
- the Arbitrator erred in law
- in holding the appellant committed an unfair labour practice by terminating respondents’ contracts of employment.
- Ordering appellant to reimburse respondents’ money deducted for training when there was no basis at law for such a finding. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court dated 31 August 2016 dismissing an application wherein the following relief was sought:
“1.The respondent be and is hereby ordered and directed to surrender to the applicant within five (5) days of the granting of this Order the Share Certificates in respect of the 37 233 118 NICOZ Diamond Insurance Limited shares held by Certificate number 37315 by the Applicant.
2. In the event that the respondent concluded the sale of the shares to any third party, the sale transaction relating thereto be and is hereby set aside... More
The brief facts are that the Respondents are employees of the Appellant. The Appellant did not pay Respondents 2010 bonuses. The matter was referred for conciliation and subsequently for arbitration. The Arbitrator found that the Appellant had failed to follow the correct procedures in advising its employees of its inability to pay the 2010 bonuses. The Arbitrator also found that the Appellant was at law enjoined to make full disclosure of its financial position during the discussions with the Respondents and before the Arbitrator. It failed to do so. The Arbitrator ordered the Appellant to pay the 2010 bonuses. Aggrieved... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Arbitrator who made an order in favour of the employee against the now Appellant Company.
The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent took up issue with the Appellant Company over his employment status and benefits which were due to him. When the Appellant Company failed to resolve the issue in question within the prescribed time limits Respondent approached a Labour Officer for conciliation. This failed and the matter ended up at the Arbitrator’s desk. More
Respondent was in the employ of the Appellant as a Production Manager before being elevated to the position of Acting Divisional Manager. Respondent was subsequently re-appointed to Production Manager which resulted in matter being referred to conciliation. Conciliation failed and the matter was referred to arbitrator. The Arbitrator found in favour of Respondent. More
First and second respondents made a court application in the Magistrates Court, seeking an interdict to bar applicant from cutting or removing timber from a woodlot allegedly belonging to first and second respondent. Applicant averred that the woodlot is situated within its demarcated area leased to it by Forestry Commission.
The court a quo concluded that there were material disputes of fact and ordered that the matter be referred to trial and that papers filed by the parties constitute the pleadings. Applicant was dissatisfied by the magistrate’s ruling and brought this application. Applicant contends that the decision of the court... More
This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in terms of section 92F (2) of the Act and Rule 43 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. The application is unopposed as the Respondents did not file any responses after being served with the application.
BRIEF FACTS More
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
This appeal arises from a decision rendered by a Designated Agent (Hereinafter the D.A) for the National Employment Council for Lumber Milling, Timber Processing and Trading Industry in Zimbabwe in two separate but similar matters relating to the dismissal of the first and second respondents respectively. More
