This is an application for confirmation of a draft ruling made by a labour officer. The application is in terms of section 93 (5a) (a) and (b) of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 (the Act). This case was “heard” before the decision which ruled that where a case has been heard and finalized at the workplace it may not be referred to a Labour Officer or designated agent but that an appeal shall be to the Labour Court. More
On 2 May 2018 the first respondent filed his opposing papers. When the matter
commenced at 9.30 am, Mr T Sengwayo requested the matter to be stood down until 2 pm, he indicated that he wanted to file a supplementary affidavit from Mr Mushonga and also to go through the opposing papers for he had only received them in the morning of the set down date Ms Mahere opposed the application arguing that since the application was brought on an urgent basis it ought to be treated as such. After the arguments for and against by both counsel it was... More
This application seeks a review of the second respondent’s decision wherein he accepted nomination papers for the first respondents after the 1600 hours deadline on 21 June 2023. More
The brief background of this matter which is generally common cause is as follows:-- On the 13th December, 2016 applicant was brought before the 2nd respondent’s Disciplinary Committee on a charge of contravening clause 11.5 (f) of the Harare Municipal Undertaking, Statutory Instrument 171 of 2010. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award.
The appellant was employed by the respondent initially as a tuck shop assistant in 2007. In 2009, she was transferred to work in the priest’s house designated as a cook but performing duties which included cleaning, hand laundering and she alleges stores too. She therefore essentially worked as a domestic worker as defined in the Domestic Workers Employment Regulations, 1992.
In September 2013, the appellant was further reassigned to the school kitchen to work as a cook. It appears that the appellant resisted this move and did not report for duty at... More
MAKONESE J: The applicant appeared before a Regional Magistrate at Bulawayo on the 4th of November 2020 facing a charge of rape as defined in section 65 of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act (Chapter 9:23). Applicant was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment of which 5 years imprisonment was suspended for 5 years on the usual condition of future good conduct. More
This is a court application, filed by the applicant on 28 September 2022, for leave to execute judgment pending appeal. The judgment which the applicant desires to execute was handed down in HC 1343/21 on 13 September 2022. After hearing arguments from the parties, I gave an ex tempore judgment allowing the relief sought by the applicant, and undertook to deliver a full judgment the next day. Here are the reasons for the order I granted on 17 November 2022. More
The instant urgent chamber application is one for an interim prohibitory interdict against respondents to bar and /or stop them from disposing and/or selling two truck horses and two tanker trailers belonging to applicant which respondents have forfeited. More
The parties agreed to refer this matter to me as a special case in terms of rule 52 of the High Court Rules, 2021. On 15 August 2022, the statement of agreed facts was duly filed, which were captured as follows:
1. Sometime in September 2020, the Plaintiff transported a fuel consignment for Wellsford International destined for Zambia, the trucks of which are the subject matter of this case.
2. Before crossing into Zambia, the trucks made an about turn and made entry into Zimbabwe, still loaded with fuel without following the customs procedure prescribed by the law.
3. The... More
At the hearing of the appeal and cross appeal, in this matter, the appellant was in default despite proper service. I proceeded to dismiss the appeal with costs.
I however could not grant the cross appeal as prayed for by the respondent as the matter relates to the quantum of damages awarded to her least I would have fallen foul of the trite position that a court in assessing damages cannot simply pluck a figure from nowhere. I therefore reserved my judgment and this is it.
The respondent was employed as a bookkeeper though an issue in dispute related to... More
This is an application for stay of execution of an arbitral award in favour of the Respondent. The award was issued on 20 January 2014. On the 17 February 17 February 2014 Applicant noted an appeal against the arbitral award. The appeal is yet to be heard.
The Respondent opposed the application on the basis that it was made prematurely as the award had not yet been registered. Respondent also raised the issue that the application is not in the prescribed form and is therefore defective. Respondent further denied that there are prospects of success on appeal and that irreparable... More
This matter was referred to me for determination on the record as provided by section 89 (2)(a)(i) of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01(hereafter called the Act). More
The appellants belong to the same group of companies. The respondent was employed by the first appellant from 1995 to 2010 in various capacities, firstly as its Finance Manager, Finance Director and last as its Executive Chairman. From 1 April 2010 he was employed by the second appellant as the Group Chief Executive Officer until 30 June 2011 when he resigned from employment. More
This is an appeal against an arbitration award.
The respondent was employed by the appellant as a Business Planning Manager. He has since been retrenched. While still in the employ of the appellant the respondent raised a complaint of alleged unfair labour practices by way of non-payment of salary arrears and other allowances.
The grievance was referred for conciliation which failed. Subsequently the matter was referred to arbitration. More
The respondent raised two preliminary points for determination before the disposal of this appeal.
It was submitted that the appellant has dirty hands and therefore is improperly before the court and that the grounds of appeal do not raise questions of law as envisaged by section 98 (10) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]”the Act”. More
