This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court of Zimbabwe handed down on 14 June 2018 in HC 2606/17as HB 147/18 dismissing the appellant’s application for condonation and extension of time within which to apply for a review of a labour court judgment More
The applicant is a tenacious serial litigant in the Bulawayo Labour Court, High Court and in the Supreme Court. He is a disgruntled former employee of the first respondent, who has been fighting tooth and nail without success to have his labour case, which was struck off the roll by the second respondent in the Labour Court on 22 March 2015, reviewed by the High Court. More
2. The appellant is a former employee of the respondent, having been employed as the school Headmaster on 28 February 2020. The respondent is a private school in Harare.
3. The appellant was charged with misconduct as defined in s 4 (a) of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations, SI 15 of 2006 (The Labour Regulations). He was facing allegations that he fraudulently allowed a student from Sandringham High School to participate in classes without paying any tuition fees to the school and without informing the respondent. More
Applicant settled an invoice for the first term 2024 tuition fees for his minor child at Goldridge Primary School in full at the prevailing Reserve Bank inter Bank rate on the date of payment. The 1st to 4th respondents have opposed the application on the basis that the application is fatally defective and further that tuition fees for the minor child have not been settled in full based on an alleged contract entered into between 1st and 2nd respondents and as such, application must fail. More
After about 35 years of marriage the plaintiff issued summons for divorce and ancillary issues in July 2014. The parties contracted a civil marriage on 28 August 1979. The defendant entered appearance to defend and subsequent pleadings thereto More
The plaintiff in this matter instituted proceedings against the defendants and prayed for the following;
“a) Payment of Special damages in the sum of US$10 000, (Ten Thousand United States Dollars) being legal costs incurred by the plaintiff in defending themselves as a result of a malicious and false accusation by the defendant that caused the arrest and subsequent trial of the plaintiffs.
b) Payment of the sum of US$90 000.00 (Ninety Thousand United States Dollars) being general damages for humiliation, loss of reputation and good name, and subsequent economic loss as a result of the defendant’s malicious and wrongful... More
On 26 October 2018 Applicant,qua Designated Agent, made a ruling. He ordered 1st Respondent (employer) to pay 2nd to 10th Respondents (employees) various amounts of money in respect of salary arrears & allowances. Apparently the employer did not comply with the ruling. Applicant then applied to this Court in terms of Section 93 (5a) of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 for the confirmation of his ruling. The employer opposed the application. The employees supported the application. At the onset of oral argument in this Court the employer raised 3 points inlimine. More
The applicant seeks the review of the decision of the second and third respondents’ to nominate, recommend and approve the appointment of the first respondent as Chief Masuka. More
This application was placed before me on 2 February 2022. I set it down for hearing on 7 February 2022. Due to circumstances which I shall explain later in this judgment, I postponed the matter to 8 February 2022. After hearing submissions from counsel on a preliminary point raised by the first respondent’s counsel, I struck the matter off the roll of urgent matters and ordered Mr V Moyo and Mr Chivaura both of Chivaura and Associates to pay the first respondent’s costs of suit on the attorney-client scale de bonis propriis the one paying the other to be absolved.... More
On the 16th September 2022, respondent’s disciplinary authority dismissed appellant from employment for misconduct. Appellant then appealed to this Court in terms of section 92 D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01. Respondent opposed the appeal. The grounds of appeal were four-field. They basically challenge the ruling on a preliminary point, sufficiency of the evidence led and the appropriateness of the penalty. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Labour Court (the court a quo) handed down on 9 March 2023. The court a quo dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the decision of the Disciplinary Hearing Authority which dismissed him from employment. More
On 6 June 2017 after hearing counsel and considering the documents filed of record we dismissed the appeal with costs. We gave an ex tempore judgment. Our written reasons are captioned herein. The court a quo issued the following order that:
‘1. The respondent be and is hereby barred from interfering with the day to day operations of the applicants.
2. The respondent is interdicted from stopping the applicant’s members from paying their subscriptions.
3. The respondent is interdicted from preventing the applicants from constructing and developing stand No. 2015 Siyaso, Magaba, Mbare in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding.... More
This is an urgent court application in which the applicant seeks the following relief:
“1. That the actions of the respondents (sic) or their lawful agents in taking over the property at Stand 836 and 837 Mazoe is an act of spoliation.
2. The respondent or any of their agents are hereby ordered to restore possession of Stand 836 and 837 Mazoe District to the applicants (sic) forthwith.
3. That it is hereby ordered that any other person is barred from interfering with the premises on Stand 836 and 837 Mazoe District without a lawful cause and order of the... More
This is an application for condonation of late noting of an appeal. It is trite that in order for the application to succeed, the following factors are considered:
a) Whether the extent of delay in noting the appeal is in ordinate considering the circumstances of the case.
b) Whether there is a reasonable explanation for the delay.
c) The prospects of success should the matter be heard on the merits. More
The application was brought before this court based on the following grounds:
“That the ruling made by the first Respondent is grossly unreasonable and is as outrageous as it defies all logic that no reasonable magistrates’ court applying its mind to the case would have arrived at such a decision.
That the first Respondent is un-procedurally (sic) and in a grossly irregular manner seeking to facilitate the second Respondent to bolster its otherwise very weak case through the defence’s evidence. The first Respondent did not show in her ruling that she actually exercised caution in treating evidence of the complainant... More
