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
At the onset of oral argument in this Court Applicant raised two (2) points in limine, which 1st Respondent opposed. The Court shall deal with the points ad seriatim. More
Applicant applied to this Court for the review of his dismissal from employment by 1st Respondent. The application was made in terms of Section 89 (1) Id of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01, hereafter called the Act. 1st Respondent opposed the application. More
Respondent was employed by appellant. Following allegations of misconduct, respondent was hauled before a disciplinary committee which found him guilty and ordered his transfer and reduction in rank in that he was to go to a non-school institution. The matter ended up in arbitration. The first arbitral award was in favour of appellant. Respondent appealed to this Court and the parties appeared before Justice Musariri. At that hearing the Learned Judge made an order for the matter to be remitted to the same arbitrator. Whilst appearing before the arbitrator the parties were not agreed on the terms of reference to... More
The Applicant instituted summons action against the Respondent for payment of sums of US$18 968-92; ZAR 19 492-95; BWP 1 037-12 and GBP 128,55 together with attorney and client costs, in respect of its funds which went missing while under the custody of the Respondent who was the church Treasurer for its Parktown congregation. More
: This is a court application for the eviction of the 1st and 2nd Respondents and all those claiming occupation through them from Stand Number 24629, Budiriro 4, Harare. The orders being sought are- More
Throughout the 2nd term we have been setting this matter down for trial. On each occasion the plaintiff’s counsel has been unable to attend either because he was in the Supreme Court or was not feeling well. More
The Respondent was employed by Appellant as a Handyperson grade B2. He was employed as from 1st December 1970 to March 2021. The Appellant is a High School which is run by the Methodist Church in Zimbabwe. Upon his retirement in March 2021 the Appellant paid out to Respondent his pension benefits from Old Mutual in the amount of $426 698.78. The Respondent however after carrying out a comparison of his entitlement to gratuity as provided under Section 20 of Statutory Instrument 102 of 2014 with the pension paid out realised that it was more beneficial to claim for gratuity... More
