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
This is an appeal against the decision of the Disciplinary Hearing Committee which dismissed the Appellant following allegations of contravening the Public Service Regulations
1 /2000.
The facts of the case are as follows: Appellant was employed as a Depot Manager by the Respondent Ministry. At the time of the allegations founding the instant case, he was based at the Marondera Vehicle Inspection Depot. More
This is an appeal against conviction and sentence. The appellant was convicted of the offence of theft by false pretences under the old law. He was sentenced to 24 months imprisonment of which 6 months imprisonment was suspended for five years on condition that during that period he does not commit an offence involving dishonesty for which he is sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine. The effective sentence was therefore 18 months imprisonment. The appeal is opposed by the respondent. More
The plaintiff and defendant are husband and wife. They married each other in Harare on 23 August 1997 in terms of the Marriage Act [Cap 5:11]. The marriage was blessed with three children, Tatenda (male born on 20 September 1997); Tapiwa (female born on 8 February 2001) and Takudzwa (female born on 10 August 2003).
On 31 March 2010 the plaintiff issued summons out of the court seeking a decree of divorce on the basis of irretrievable breakdown, an order for custody of the three minor children, an order of sharing matrimonial property and costs of suit. More
The background to this matter explains the very long and elaborate draft order. These background facts are based on the applicant’s version, which is this: the applicant and 1st respondent were known to each other as client and legal practitioner since 2005. The 1st respondent is a legal practitioner and senior partner practicing under Dube-Banda, Nzarayapenga and Partners. The 1st and 2nd respondents are shareholders in the 3rd respondent. The 1st respondent pitched a proposal to the applicant to invest in the 3rd respondent and the applicant duly invested US$400 000 but in the form of a loan. This investment... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Institute Board to dismiss the appellant from employment.
The brief history of this matter is that appellant a lecturer in the Pharmaceutical Technology department around August 2015 started conducting lectures for two foreign students from Namibia without the requisite authorisation. He made the students to pay $200 for the ten lessons he delivered to them. He was charged for contravening Section 9:4:2 of the Disciplinary and Grievance Handling Procedural which reads that
“Any act of conduct or omission inconsistent of the express or implied conditions of his contract.” More
