This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court handed down in Case No. HC 8150/13 on 14 November 2014.
This matter was first argued on 5 June 2015 in relation to the first ground of appeal, to wit, the procedural point that the court a quo had erred in entertaining a challenge to its jurisdiction by way of an exception as opposed to a special plea. Argument was confined to this procedural point on the basis that a decision on that point in favour of the appellant would dispose of the entire appeal. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Labour Court. In its judgment the court a quo found that the appellant had discriminated against the respondent by not granting him a 50 percent salary increase following a job evaluation exercise. More
This is an appeal against a judgment of the High Court (‘the court a quo”), wherein it dismissed an application filed by the appellant to set aside an arbitral award in terms of Article 34 of the Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15] (“the Act”). The court a quo consequently granted the court application for the registration of the arbitral award in favour of the first respondent. More
The respondent was formerly employed by the appellant as a diesel electrician at the appellant’s Lochnivar Power Depot in Harare. On 31 March 2016, the respondent, joined 1357 of his fellow employees in a collective job action which had commenced on 29 March 2016. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court (the ‘court a quo’) in which it dismissed an application made by the appellant under HC2938/19 for the setting aside of an arbitral award. It, in the same proceedings, granted an application made under HC2554/19 by the first respondent for the recognition and registration of the same arbitral award. Both applications, heard by the court a quo, related to the same arbitral award that had been granted by the second respondent. More
This is an appeal against the entire judgment of the Administrative Court, handed down on 26 March 2018 allowing an appeal by the respondent against the decision of the appellant, with a punitive award of costs. In essence, the judgment upheld the respondent’s contention that he was entitled to a pension from 1 June 2009, the date following his retirement at the age of fifty-nine years and six months, contrary to the appellant’s contention that the respondent became entitled to the pension with effect from 1 December 2009, upon his attainment of the age sixty. More
The applicants have had a long running legal battle with the 4th respondent (Air Zimbabwe Holdings) and Air Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd, a subsidiary company of Air Zimbabwe Holdings. The legal dispute between the parties has its genesis steeped in matters of employment. It is claimed that Air Zimbabwe Holdings and Air Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd owe the applicants and their members (who are employees of the former) approximately US$35 415 731,80 representing union dues and salary arrears for the period January, 2009 to December 2011. The applicants believe that the financial woes bedevilling Air Zimbabwe Holdings and Air Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd... More
Applicant applied to this Court for “a review of the decision/action of the 1st Respondent” regarding the negotiation process of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The application
1
was made in terms of Section 89(1) 1d of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01. 1st Respondent opposed the application whilst 2nd Respondent did not file any response. More
On the last day of hearing of this application, I delivered an interim order pending the determination of the present application to the effect that:
“That pending the handing down of the judgment under this urgent chamber application, the 1st and 3rd Respondents are hereby directed to stay execution of judgment under HC 5790/22 against the applicant.” More
The brief facts of this matter are that:
(1) The respondent was employed by the appellant as a bakery checker
(2) On 11 July 2011 he was suspended from employment without pay and benefits.
(3) On 15 July 2011 the respondent was phoned by a workmate to report at work on that day. He appeared for a hearing that day and he was dismissed from work.
(4) On the 29 of July 2011 the respondent received a formal notification of the hearing. He was being charged for gross incompetence in performance of duties and habitual substantial neglect of duty.
(5)... More
The application is for a declaratory order to declare that an arbitral award handed down by the arbitrator, the first respondent, on 9 November, 2012, is incompetent, void and therefore unenforceable. More
This is an application for reinstatement.
Applicant filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court on 23 June 2023. The Applicant failed/neglected to file heads of argument in that case which was LC/H/488/23. The matter was deemed abandoned by the Registrar on 9 August 2023 in terms Rule 46 (b). Applicant subsequently filed an application for reinstatement on 12 September 2023 in Case Number LC/H/694/23. The matter was heard on 12 March 2024 with the result that the matter was struck off the roll because of defective documents filed with that application. More
In a Notice issued on 9 August 2023, Applicant’s application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was deemed abandoned by the Registrar in terms of Rule 46 (b) of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. This is therefore an application for reinstatement of the application. More
The respondent is a former employee of the applicant. His contract of employment was terminated. The papers filed in this matter show that the Labour Court dismissed his appeal and upheld the termination of the contract of employment. The respondent according to the papers in this matter, has instituted proceedings for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Labour Court. More
