It is clear that the parties are locked in dispute as to the extent of coverage of their respective sector or industry. The quoted statutory provision specifically refers such dispute to the Labour Court for determination.Respondent argued in general terms that the Labour Court is prohibited from issuing interdicts. The argument relates to the specific order which the Court may grant. That aspect of the case should be raised in due course when the parties deal with the merits of the case. The main point as appears from Section 46 is that this Court has jurisdiction over the matter. More
Applicant applied to this Court for “determination of extent or description of an undertaking of industry” in terms of Section 46 of the Labour Act Chapter 278:01 hereafter called the Act. Respondent opposed the application. More
This is an application for rescission of default judgment upliftment of bar and condonation of late filing of heads of argument. Respondent was granted an arbitral award in his favour on 25 September 2012. Applicant appealed against the arbitral award on 2 October 2012. There was no notice from the Registrar, in terms of Rule 15(2) of this Court’s Rules SI 59/06, to the Respondent. Nevertheless Respondent filed his response on 13 November 2012 which he says was served on Applicant’s legal practitioners on 14 November 2012. Applicant filed heads of argument on 17 January 2013. On 29 January 2013... More
The facts of the matter are that the applicant was employed as a truck driver by the second respondent in or around January 2011. On 4 September 2012, the applicant was charged with having committed acts of conduct or omission inconsistent with the fulfilment of the express or implied conditions of his contract in terms of S I 15 of 2006. This was in spite of there being a registered code. The applicant was found guilty and dismissed by the disciplinary hearing committee. This decision was confirmed by the internal appeals authority on 11 October 2012. The applicant proceeded to... More
The delay in the hand down of this judgement is sincerely regretted. On the 24th of July, 2024 this court issued an order to the following effect;
“1. Ground of appeal number 5 is struck off. 2. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
3. The judgement is to follow.”
The following constitutes the reasons for the order as granted. More
Applicant’s contention is as follows:- The application has been necessitated by the need for a final and definitive statement as to her status and rights on account of the refusal of the first respondent to entertain her request for confirmation of her status as a citizen of Zimbabwe by birth. She was born in Memphis in the United States of America (though she actually stated United States of America Zimbabwe in her founding affidavit). Her father was born in Zimbabwe whilst her mother was born in India but is a citizen of Zimbabwe. At the time of her birth, her... More
This was initially a contested trial which then proceeded as a stated case by mutual consent of the parties after filing a statement of agreed facts. The point of law taken up for argument revolves around the interpretation of s 282(2)(b) of the Urban Councils Act [Chapter 29:15]. More
The plaintiff is a co-operative society engaged in the noble business of providing housing for its members one of whom was, until he was unceremoniously dismissed from membership by letter dated4 June 2015, the defendant in this matter. Following the expulsion of the defendant, the plaintiff sued out a summons against him seeking an order for his eviction from a property known as stand 5486 of 315 Retreat Township, Waterfalls Harare (the stand) on the pain of legal practitioner and client costs. More
The applicant, as a self actor, filed this application seeking an order for the postponement or suspension of sale in execution of his dwelling house in terms of order 40 rule 348A(5b). More
The applicant seeks against the respondents, the following relief set out in the draft order accompanying the application:
“IT IS ORDERED THAT:-
1. The Applicant is not in breach of the agreement of sale in respect of Stand number 1227 Tynwald South Measuring 2052m2 in the name of the 1st respondent.
2. The 1st Respondent be and is hereby ordered to attend to Zimbabwe Revenue Authority for the assessment of capital gains tax and sign all papers to facilitate the transfer of the property described in paragraph 1 above into the Applicant’s name.
3. If the 1st Respondent fails or... More
On the 19th of February, 2020 this court issued an order by consent of the parties referenced LC/H/ORD/137/2020. The Court directed the stay of disciplinary proceedings against Applicant and her reinstatement to her original position without loss of salary and benefits. After the proceedings before this court the employer took the position to pay damages rather than to reinstate the Applicant. This resulted in the Applicant approaching this court with her application for quantification of damages. The Respondent opposed the application. More
This is a chamber application for condonation of noncompliance with the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 and for extension of time in which to appeal made in terms of r 43. The intended appeal is against a judgment of the High Court which was handed down on 30 July 2021. In that judgment, the applicant’s application for a declaratur was dismissed. More
The applicant seeks the following order as set out in the amended draft order;
1. “The lease agreement entered between the applicant and the fourth respondent in respect of stand 294 Carrick Creagh, Borrowdale Harare be and is hereby declared valid and binding between the parties.
2. The sale agreement concluded between the first and third respondent in respect of stand no. 294 Carrick Creagh, Borrowdale Harare be and is hereby declared null and void and is set aside.
3. The allocation of stand 294 Carrick Creagh, Borrowdale Harare to third respondent by first and fourth respondents be and is... More
Plaintiff instituted action proceedings against the defendant for the following relief;
1. Payment of the sum of $46 750 being damages arising out of defendant’s breach of its duty of care and for misrepresentation and/ or breach of its implied authority.
2. Interest thereon at the prescribed rate from the 30th June 2014 to date of payment in full and
3. Costs of suit More
On 24 August 2018 the Constitutional Court (“the Court”) handed down the abridged version of the judgment in the case in which the applicant challenged the validity of the Presidential election held on 30 July 2018. More
