On 5th July 2012 this Court made an order. The terms of the order read as follows,
“Respondent having failed to file its response in terms of Rule 15 of the Labour Court Rules Statutory Instrument 59 of 2006: and further having also failed to show good cause for such failure to file a notice of response, a default judgment be and is hereby entered against the Respondent. The appeal is consequently allowed by reason of Respondent’s default.” (The underlining for emphasis is mine) More
This matter was set down before me as a rescission of judgment application by the employer of a judgment which was granted in default by the Labour Court in favour of the employee. Parties will in the entirety of this judgment be referred to as employer and employee to avoid confusing the record since the record is replete with the parties interchanging roles depending on what application was before the court at the various stages. More
This is an application for condonation of late filing of heads of argument in case number HC 3268/16 (the main matter) in contravention of order 32 Rule 238 (2a) of the Rules of Court. More
On 9 June 2020, applicants filed this application seeking the following order:-
“IT IS ORDERED THAT:
Judgement is hereby entered in favour of the Applicant and against the Respondents as follows:
1. The Respondents do (sic) and are hereby interdicted from selling land which belongs to the State in the name of Miracles of Heaven Housing Co-operative at retreat farm in waterfalls, Harare.
2. To return all Receipt Books, certificate of registration and by-laws of the 1st applicant.
3. The Respondents be and are hereby ordered to stop constructing or recommending construction of illegal structures in the name of first... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Arbitrator where she dismissed the Appellant’s claim. Appellant was seeking to be substantively appointed to grade 11 (Senior Clerical Officer) a position which she claims had acted in for long and thus had a legitimate expectation to be appointed substantively to that position.
Facts of the case are that Appellant joined the Respondent Council as a general labourer grade 15/16 in 1999. In 2003 she had occasion to act in a capacity above her grade and received some acting allowance for that grade. During the course of that acting her superiors... More
The applicant registered a mining block known as Golden Mile 12 in 1995 with a registration number 23506.The applicant has religiously complied with all the necessary legal and statutory requirements for a valid registration. However, the validity of the registration is disputed, the 2nd respondent alleges that it was forfeited in June 2021.The forfeiture is subject to litigation.The applicant has been in occupation of the mine since 1995.In November 2021 the 1st respondent invaded the mine and advised all the occupants that he was the new owner. The applicant approached the Provincial Mining Director who advised the applicant that his... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Magistrates court sitting at Masvingo ordering the eviction of the appellants from certain residential premises which they currently occupy on account of their employment with the Respondent company. More
This is a court application for a declarator made in terms of s 14 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06]. The applicant seeks the following relief:
a) That it be declared that the union that existed between applicant and the deceased being James Chigwedere was a putative marriage.
b) That it be declared that the applicant is entitled to inherit a certain piece of land situate in the District of Salisbury being remainder of Stand Number 3042 Glen Lorne Township Salisbury District measuring 14326,55 square meters in her capacity as the putative spouse and such property shall not form... More
The respondent (as plaintiff) issued summons in the court below claiming the ejectment of the appellant (as defendant) and all those claiming occupation through her from No.1 Winston House 109 Leopold Takawira Street Harare. Holding over damages were also sought at the rate of ZW$2 500.00 per month from the date of summons to the date of ejectment as well as costs of suit. Having heard the parties in a trial, the court a quo granted the order. More
The factual background to the claim is as follows. The appellant is the holder of rights, title and interest in an immovable property known as 34819 Unit ‘G’ Seke, Chitungwiza (the property). In December 2020, the appellant entered into an agreement of sale with the first respondent in terms of which she sold her rights in the property to the latter. The first respondent complied with all his obligations in terms of the said agreement and demanded cession of rights in the property into his name. The appellant was initially cooperative, but subsequently turned hostile. She refused to effect cession... More
The brief facts of the matter are that the applicant was arraigned before the Bindura Magistrates Court on 22 July 2024 being charged with one count of unlawful detention as defined in s 93(1)(a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (“the Criminal Code”); two counts of contempt of court as defined in terms of s 182 of the Criminal Code and one count of assault as defined in terms of s 89(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. On the charge of unlawful detention, it is alleged that on 18 July 2024 he unlawfully deprived Xu Yang, Simbarashe... More
Applicant (the employee) applied for a rescission of the judgment handed down in default of his appearance at the Labour Court on 13 June 2012 in favor of the Respondent (the employer). This forms the basis of this judgment.
The background of the case is that the employee was dismissed by the employer following disciplinary proceedings which were conducted in his absence at the workplace. His matter ended up at the Labour Officers and finally at arbitration where the arbitrator made an order wherein among other things the employer was ordered to reinstate the employee to his original position. More
When the parties appeared before me in this matter on 2 October 2024 for a pre-trial conference, it was apparent that there were two related points of law which needed to be settled before the trial could proceed as they had the potential of disposing of the matter without the need of considering the merits. Both parties in their pre-trial conference memorandums had identified the issue of whether the plaintiff’s claim was res judicata or not but the defendant had gone further to raise the issue of whether or not there was a valid cause of action by the plaintiff... More
