This is an appeal from the decision of the arbitrator. The facts in this matter are largely common cause. Respondent was injured during his course of duties in 2010. He sought medical attention which took a long time up until 2012. The appellant proceeded to terminate respondent’s employment contract in terms of section 14 (4) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. Respondent took the matter to the Labour Officer and this subsequently led to arbitration. The arbitrator found in favour of the respondent and the appellant has approached this Court on appeal. Appellant’s grounds of appeal are as follows: More
This judgment disposes of two applications involving the same parties filed under case numbers. HC 1381/21 and HC 1497/21. In case number HC 1381/21, the applicant is Associated Mine Workers Union of Zimbabwe. The respondents seriatim are Mazowe Mining Company (Pvt) Ltd (Under Corporate Reserve); Reggie Saruchera; Cecil Madondo and Master of High Court. Reggie Saruchera and Cecil Madondo were both appointed by this court as respectively lead and subordinate corporate rescue practitioners of Mazowe Mining Company (Pvt) Ltd. The Master was also made a respondent to comply with procedural law. More
On 9 May 2014 this Court, dismissed Applicant’s application for rescission of the judgment of MUZOFA J which had been handed down on 30 January 2014. Applicant is dissatisfied with that decision and seeks to approach the Supreme Court. This is an application in terms of section 92F of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. The basis of the appeal is that the Court did not give due weight to Applicant’s written submissions in considering the prospects of success. Further, it was averred that the Supreme Court should be requested to correctly state the interpretation and applicability of Rules 19 and... More
This is an application for rescission of judgment granted by MUZOFA J. on 30th January 2014.
The brief background of this matter are that Applicant and Respondents appeared before PRESIDENT NDEWERE (as she then was) on 20th June 2013 where Applicant applied for time to file Heads of Argument. This application was granted. Applicant did not file Heads of Argument until 4th October 2013. Meanwhile the Respondents had made an application in terms of Rule 19 on 5th September 2013 and on 29th November 2013 the Registrar wrote to Respondents to address certain issues in that application. The application by... More
Appellants appealed against a number of arbitration awards issued against them at the instance of Respondent. The matters involved essentially the same question. Hence the parties sought and obtained the consolidation of the appeals into one matter. They then filed a statement of agreed facts dated 27th August, 2014 which was signed by both parties and filed of record. More
This is an urgent application for stay of execution in terms of section 92E (3) of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 as read with Rule 18 Labour Court Rules 2017. The applicant seeks to have stayed an arbitral determination made by Arbitrator Honourable Gadaga on 5 August 2024. The award ruled that applicant employer pays to its employees who are represented by the respondent workers’ Union a total of USD 787 413 and ZIG 1 771 686 as outstanding salaries and allowances. The grant of stay relief is opposed by the respondent Union. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award handed down on 16 November 2015, in terms of which it was ruled that the respondent’s members are entitled to bonus payments in terms of their conditions of service. More
The plaintiffs issued summons against the defendant for damages for psychological trauma, pain and suffering allegedly caused to the first and second plaintiffs arising from Air Carriage. The allegations are that the first and second plaintiff who are minors, travelled on the defendant’s airline to South Africa on 30 March 2016. More
The appellant appeals against her conviction and sentence. She denied that she had stolen US$24 000, 00 from her employer but, after a trial, she was convicted and sentenced to 4years imprisonment of which 6 months were suspended for 5 years on condition of good behaviour and 36 months on condition she makes full restitution of the whole amount through the clerk of court on or before 30 April 2012. There is an order annexed to the sentence requiring “household property to be returned to accused.” More
The application for bail pending appeal against both conviction and sentence was dismissed on the basis that the conviction was well sounded on evidence adduced before the court and that the trial court properly exercised its sentencing discrepancy and came up with an appropriate sentence in the circumstances. More
This is an application for maintenance pendente lite and contribution towards costs made in terms of r 67 of the High Court Rules 2021 which permits such as n application where there is a need for such support in divorce proceedings. The applicant seeks maintenance in the sum of £.1700.00 a month as well as a contribution of 80% towards her legal costs. The common cause facts are that she moved to the United Kingdom from South Africa where she was living with her husband. She was not working as she had previously left her nursing job in England to... More
At the hearing of this matter I upheld a point in limine and indicated that reasons would follow. These are they:
The respondent was employed by the appellant as a security guard. He signed a contract for the period 1 November 2013 to 31 October 2014. He was notified that his contract would not be renewed. The respondent claimed under payment of salary from February 2013 to October 2014. The arbitrator held that there was underpayment of wages and ordered that the appellant pays an acting allowance for the period 5 February to 31 October 2014. The appellant appealed to... More
This is an application for stay of execution pending appeal against an arbitral award dated 16 March 2013, which ordered reinstatement of the respondent or payment of damages. More
On 1 July 2013 Respondent noted an appeal against the decision of the Applicant’s Appeals Officer in this Court. On 6 August 2013 notice of response was filed and served on the Respondent’s Legal Practitioners. One Sekai Magava of Gonese, Jessie Majome & Co Legal Practitioners confirmed receipt of the notice of response on the 6 August 2013 at 4.05. In terms of Rule 19 Respondent was supposed to file Heads of Argument within fourteen days of receiving the response. This requirement was not complied with. More
