At the close of submissions I dismissed the application stating that the reasons would follow. The following are the reasons.
Applicant was employed by Respondent and was charged with contravening section 3.2.4 (c) of Respondent’s Group Employment Code of Conduct. Applicant is alleged to have grossly failed to manage the stocks of explosives in terms of the safety procedures. The Hearing Committee recommended his dismissal. Applicant appealed to the Disciplinary and Grievance Committee which upheld the dismissal. Applicant’s Counsel thereafter appealed to the National Employment Council (NEC) which was in fact the wrong forum. The Applicant has finally approached this... More
Appellant was employed by the Respondent as waiter. He was engaged for eight (8) days and was allegedly dismissed. The matter finally landed in arbitration. An initial arbitration award was set aside by Justice KUDYA. In the second arbitration, the Arbitrator found in favour of Appellant. Appellant is not satisfied with this award and appealed to this Court. More
This appeal centres on a land ownership dispute in Manjonjo Village, Murehwa. In hearing the matter de novo as per s 24(2) of the Customary law and Local Courts Act [Chapter 7:05] the Magistrate determined that the focus should be to ascertain, on a balance of probabilities, who is the owner of the land in the sense of who was actually allocated the land in the initial instance upon the facts submitted. This was in contrast to the Chief’s approach in the community court where the matter had been decided as if the dispute was one of boundaries. More
The Respondent objected to the Appellant’s failure to file Heads of Argument on time and submitted that the Appellant is therefore barred automatically in terms of Labour Court Rules. In his counter argument, the Appellant submitted that the failure to file Heads of Argument on time was caused by the Respondent’s failure to file a Notice of Response in terms of the Rules. Respondent submitted that although the prescribed Notice of Response was not filed, there was a notice of opposition filed in an interim application by the Appellant and it was clear from the Notice of opposition that the... More
This is an application to strike out the declaration filed by the plaintiff on the ground that it is superfluous.
The plaintiff issued an endorsed summons which was accompanied by a declaration. Appearance to defend was then filed on behalf of the defendants. Subsequently the defendants requested for further particulars to which the plaintiff responded. The defendants again sought further and better particulars to which the plaintiff responded. The defendants then wrote to the plaintiff pointing out that the filing of a declaration was superfluous since the plaintiff had opted to file an endorsed summons. The defendants intimated an intention... More
This is an application for rescission of a judgment which was granted in the absence of the applicants. The applicants have asserted that they or at least one of them (1st applicant) used to make regular checks with the court officials and were consistently told that no set down date had been granted. The first applicant was surprised one day when upon insisting that he wanted to know what was happening the he was told that the matter had already been disposed of. Thus the present application became necessary. More
This is a case in which originallythe plaintiff, Michael Johnson, sought payment from the first defendant, PhilipEllse, of the sum of US$80 000-00 (eighty thousand United States Dollars) being the outstanding amount owed to the plaintiff for an outstanding loan together with interest up to the in duplum limit. More
The applicant seeks an order in the following terms:
“1. The decision of the first respondent dismissing the applicant’s application for
discharge at the close of the State case under case number CRB 9311/19 be and is
hereby set aside.
2. The applicant be and is hereby discharged and acquitted at the close of State case under CRB 9311/19.
3. Each party to bear its own costs.” More
The facts of this case are not in dispute. Following suspicion that some employees including appellant defrauded respondent through false travel and subsistence claims, investigations were made. The appellant together with other employees involved in the fraudulent activities were charged for violating paragraphs 13 e and 24 of the first schedule of the Civil Service Regulations, 2000 as amended. He was found liable and dismissed from employment with effect from 16 April 2015. More
The applicant was dismissed from the respondent’s employ on 8th December 2020. He appealed internally. His appeal failed and he was advised of this on 18th December 2020.On 30th December 2020 he filed a notice of appeal with this Court. He however did not serve the respondent with such notice. This means that the respondent was not aware of the intended appeal . There is no proof of service on record. The said appeal was deemed abandoned for failure to file a certificate of service. It is not known as to when the abandonment occurred. It is against this background... More
This is an application for the review of the second respondent’s decision to award custody of a minor child to the first respondent. The basic facts were to the effect that the applicant and the first respondent were married in terms of customary law. Their union was blessed with a minor child born on the 18 April 2007. The marriage was dissolved on 24 August 2009 in terms of customary law More
Appellants were employed by Respondent in April 2011 as guards. Their contracts of employment were termination with effect from 30th June 2012. On 30th July 2012 Appellants approached the NEC appealing against unlawful dismissal/termination of contracts. The Grievance and Disciplinary Committee held that Respondent did not follow proper termination procedures and ordered their reinstatement without loss of salary and benefits with effect from date of unlawful termination. More
The plaintiff herein claims damages in the sum of US$50,000 representing the market value of a house that the defendant had sold to the plaintiff as well as a third party. The defendant pleads that the agreement relied upon by the plaintiff is not legally enforceable. More
