The appellant, Mr Mugove Chatizembwa, was employed by the respondent as a quarry superintendent. On 21 April 2013 he was on duty. Without seeking his superior’s authority he took a company vehicle and went to a certain farm which is about 25 kilometers from his work place. The purpose of this trip was personal to him. Whilst there he met one of his superiors. They exchanged greetings. Thereafter they discussed his presence at that place at the material time. What transpired at that venue is best captured by his report to the Mines Engineer which I will quote in full. More
The appellant,despite his protestations of innocence, was convicted of plain robbery as defined in s 126 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act,[Cap9:23]. He was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment with one year suspended on appropriate conditions. He still protests his innocence and seeks this court’s intervention over his grievance of improper conviction and sentence. This is a classical case in which the dangers of relying on the uncorroborated evidence of a single witness are well demonstrated. I will demonstrate. More
On 12 February 2018 the applicant obtained from this court a default judgment against the first respondent in proceedings under case no HC 206/18. The default judgment directed the first respondent to pay the applicant an amount in the sum of USD175 720-00, together with interest at the prescribed rate and costs of suit. On 19 February 2018 the applicant issued a writ of execution. The second respondent attached certain assets belonging to the first respondent, including three immovable properties. The attachment sparked further litigation between the parties. More
This is an opposed matter wherein applicant sought an order for the appointment of second and third respondents as trustees to Centennial Trust declared null and void and the payments of costs on a higher scale.
After hearing the parties I granted the order and rendered an ex-tempore judgment granting the order sought as subsequently amended. More
Issues to do with the liberty of an individual, foreign or a citizen of this country must no doubt be brought to court at the earliest opportunity. Taking into account the circumstances surrounding this particular case, I am satisfied that the application was properly brought to court on an urgent basis. More
This is an ex-parte chamber application for the registration of a restitution/ compensation order which was granted against the respondent by the Magistrates Court sitting at Harare on 8 February 2016 following her conviction in a criminal matter under case number CRB 6916/15. More
The matter initially came before the Labour Court for the confirmation of a draft ruling. The Court dismissed that application on the basis that the applicant had exceeded his jurisdiction. He had decided the issue that had been referred to him and after that, he had created another issue and decided the case on the basis of that issue which was not properly before him. The Court found that it was irregular. As a result, the Court declined to confirm the draft ruling. This was in 2021. More
This appeal centres mainly on the issue whether the Arbitrator was correct in holding that the Labour Officer and consequently the Arbitrator had jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter.
Appellant’s case on the one hand was that the dispute between it and Respondent was a commercial one over which the Labour Officer had no jurisdiction whilst Respondent’s case on the other hand was that the dispute was a labour dispute over which the Labour Officer had jurisdiction. More
The matter was placed before me as an application for upliftment of the bar operating against the Applicant by virtue of its failure to file Heads of Argument. More
Respondent was in the employ of the appellant. Respondent was caught sleeping on duty and cautioned by appellant’s senior employee. He was caught in the act again on the same day and was hauled before a disciplinary committee which recommended his dismissal. The internal appeals authority upheld the penalty and the matter finally ended up with the arbitrator. The arbitrator was of the view that the penalty of dismissal was too harsh and substituted it with a Final Written Warning valid for twelve (12) months. Respondent was to be reinstated without loss of pay and benefits. Appellant is dissatisfied with... More
The delay in the hand down of the judgment is sincerely regretted.
The application before the court is an application for review of the decision taken by the Respondent on 2nd February, 2022 to terminate the Applicant’s contract of employment in terms of Section 12C of the Labour Act [Cap 28:01]. The application is premised on Section 92 EE(1) of the Labour Act [Cap 28:01] as read with Rule 20 of the Labour Court, Rules 2017. More
I am seized with this matter in terms of section 98 (14) and (15) of the Labour Act which requires that an arbitral award be registered either in this court or the Magistrate’s court to pave way for its execution. More
On 10 June 2020 we dismissed the appellant’s appeal in respect of sentence after hearing arguments from counsel. We gave our detailed reasons ex tempore.
On 15 June 2020 I received a letter from appellants counsel dated 12 June, 2020 in which a request for written reasons for dismissing the appeal was made. I now provide the reasons hereunder; More
This is an application for rescission in terms of Order 49 r 449 (1) (a) of the High Court rules, 1971. On or around the 27th December 2011, the applicant, Munashe Shava, took out a loan with the respondent bank, for US$36,700-00 under a group loan facility. The effect of the agreement was that the respondent would disburse money to the applicant upon applicant’s request to the maximum limit of US$36,700-00. Interest was to be levied on the loan at the rate of 23% per annum. Repayments on the loan were set at US$2922-00 per month. Full payment of the... More
