On 8 May 2024 this court dismissed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court at the instance of the applicant employees. The court indicated that if the parties wanted reasons for the dismissal of the application they were at liberty to request these from the court. More
Plaintiff issued summons against the defendant claiming $13 700 “arising from a deposit of sum made to plaintiff’s account, which was unlawfully taken by defendant without a proper court order or notice. The amount having been earned by plaintiff through a lawful transaction for the sale of a motor vehicle.” More
It is a well-established principle of our jurisprudential undertone that this court is loath to interfere with unterminated proceedings at the lower courts. The applicant wishing to convince this court to interfere with such uncompleted proceedings must demonstrate existence of exceptional circumstances. The applicants made tireless and spirited efforts to display exceptional state of affairs but this court is of the opinion that the applicants’ case is not a discernable paragon meeting the requisite threshold. More
At the onset of oral argument in this Court Respondent raised 3 (three) points in limine
which the Applicant opposed. The Court shall deal with the points ad seriatim. More
At the onset of the hearing by this Court the parties’ attorneys waived oral argument. It was agreed that the Court proceeds to determine the matter on basis of the documents filed of record.
Applicant applied for the reinstatement of his appeal in terms of Rule 36 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017 More
In this matter the appellant lodged an appeal against the decision of the court a quo wherein the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim and ruled in favour of the defendant. The matter was centred on whether or not there was breach of contract warranting cancellation of the agreement between the parties and thus effectively barring the plaintiff from claiming specific performance to enforce the agreement. The appellant raised the following grounds of appeal: More
This is a claim for damages for interference with a lease agreement in the sum of ZAR 2 620 000-00. The basis upon which the claim is founded is that the defendant unlawfully took possession of a bus which was the subject of a lease agreement between the plaintiff and one Norman Gasa thereby depriving the plaintiff of the rentals which would have been paid to it by the said Norman Gasa who was the lessee. More
This is an appeal against the decision of an Arbitratorsitting at Harare.Before the appeal could be argued respondent raised a point in liminethat the appellant has approached this court with dirty hands. The respondent submitted that the appellant approached this court before complying with the decision of the Arbitrator. It is trite that in terms of Section 92 E (2) of the Labour Act [Cap 28:01] (The Act) an appeal does not suspend the operation of the decision appealed against. Further Section 92 E(3) of the Act provides a party with a chance to apply for the suspension of the... More
This is an application for interim Relief as provided for in section 92 E(3) of the Labour Act [Cap 28:01] as read with section 17 of the Labour Court Rules (SI 159/06). More
Appellant’s prayer in her claim before the Arbitrator was that since she was then employed on a contract without limit of time, she was entitled to three months’ notice of $2 700,00.
The term of reference to the Arbitrator which the Arbitrator considered was –
“whether or not claimant had a legitimate expectation that her contract of employment would be renewed for a further period of 6 months.
If so, the remedy thereof.” More
Appellant was arraigned before a Disciplinary Committee on 6 charges in terms of the 1st schedule of the Public Service Regulations S.I. 1/2000 (The Regulations). Four of the charges were found to have been proven, and as a result the Disciplinary Authority discharged her from the Respondent’s employ. More
: The applicant has approached this court seeking an order declaring all the respondents herein to be in contempt of court for failure to comply with an order given under HH 08/11 in which the applicant was awarded damages in lieu of reinstatement. The applicant seeks that the respondents be imprisoned for 90 days the period of which is to be suspended on condition that the respondents comply with the order within 14 days. The application is opposed by the third respondent only who incidentally is the former employer of the applicant. More
The applicant in this matter was charged with and convicted of assault in July 1999. He was fined $400 or in default of payment ordered to serve two months in prison. He was further sentenced to imprisonment for one month, all of which was suspended for five years on certain conditions. He successfully appealed against both conviction and sentence More
On 14 June 2013, I granted the applicant leave to file an additional supporting affidavit in the matter which was before me; an application for rescission of judgment and upliftment of bar. Advocate Mpofu for the first respondent immediately expressed displeasure with my ruling and sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the interlocutory order I had granted. I granted the applicant leave to appeal and indicated that I will give my reasons for allowing the filing of an additional supporting affidavit by the applicant. I now proceed to do so. More
On 2 December 2016 I granted a provisional order restraining the respondents from preventing the applicant sitting an examination that was scheduled for 5 December 2016. More
