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
This is an appeal against the entire judgment of the High Court sitting at Harare handed down on 26 March 2018. At the end of the hearing in this matter, we dismissed the appeal with costs and indicated that the reasons would follow. These are they. More
The plaintiff’s claim is for payment of US$247 704.01, together with interest thereon at the prescribed rate from the date of summons to the date of full payment, and costs of suit on the legal practitioner and client scale. More
This is an application for upliftment of bar and condonation of late filing of heads of argument.
The applicant filed an appeal with this court on 17 May 2013. On 5 June 2013 the respondent filed its response. In terms of r 19(1)(a) of the Labour Court Rules S I 59 of 2006, the applicant was supposed to file its heads of argument within fourteen days of receiving the response from the respondent. The failure to comply with r 19(1)(a) has resulted in the applicant being barred in terms of r 19(3)(b). More
This is an appeal against two interim awards and a quantification award. Appellant was employed by respondent in the human resources department. On 14 January 2010 she was dismissed from employment for misconduct. She appealed against her dismissal. On 16 December 2011 this Court set aside her dismissal and ordered respondent to conduct a re-hearing on penalty. Pending the outcome of the re-hearing, appellant was to remain on suspension without pay and benefits. More
The applicant appealed the decision which the court a quo entered against it in HB 66/19 (HC 2163/16). It filed its appeal under SC 288/19. The Supreme Court dismissed its appeal in its entirety. The dismissal was so notwithstanding the fact that the applicant raised, as one of its nine grounds of appeal, the issue of the scale of costs. Ground number 9 of its grounds of appeal is relevant in the mentioned regard. More
This is an appeal against a determination by the Chairperson of the Appeals Committee which determination was handed down on 15 October 2020. The material background facts to the matter are as follows;
The three Respondents in this matter were all employed by the Applicant. They were all separately charged with an act of misconduct namely “gross negligence” under and in terms of the relevant Code of Conduct for the Printing and Packaging Industry. More
The plaintiff and the defendant married each other on 20 July 2001. The plaintiff instituted these divorce proceedings which the defendant is strenuously opposing. More
This is an appeal against both conviction and sentence. The appellant and another, who is not a party to this appeal, were charged and convicted of “Unlawful dealing in a dangerous drug” as defined in s 156 (1) (c) of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (The Code), by the Regional Magistrates Court (trial court) sitting at Harare on 12 April 2019. They were sentenced to 10 years imprisonment of which 2 years were suspended for 5 years on the usual conditions of good behaviour. In addition, the trial court ordered the forfeiture of 710 kgs of... More
On 17 February 2017, with the consent of the parties who appeared before me I gave an order by consent of both parties which set aside the decision of the court a quo sitting at Gwanda, wherein the learned magistrate had declined to discharge the applicant at the close of the state case.
There has been a flurry of correspondence demanding my reasons for my order. Here are the reasons.
The background
This is an application for review against the decision of the Provincial Magistrate sitting at Gwanda wherein he declined to grant an order for the discharge of the... More
The plaintiff has issued summons against the defendant wherein it claims payment of an amount of USD$24 256.65, interest on the stated sum at the prescribed rate and costs of suit. The background to the claim is briefly the following. More
The applicants are a married couple. They got married on 1 May, 2014. They did so at the Masjid-Al-Abbas Holy Temple which is in Harare. Their marriage was in accordance with the couple’s Islamic religious rites. A baby boy was born to them. He is one Azaan Zulfiqar. He was born on 18 November, 2016. More
