On the date of hearing I dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs. I indicated that reasons would follow. These are they;
This is an appeal against the decision of the Disciplinary and Grievance Committee which confirmed Appellant’s conviction and dismissal from employment on contravening section 5.7.1. (ii) of Chemplex Corporation employment Code of Conduct, that is to say;
‘any gross act, conduct or omission not covered in this code which is inconsistent with the express or implied conditions of the employee’s contract’ More
HC 9129/19 and HC 6/20 were filed as separate cases. They deal with substantially the same dominant parties and the issue of an immovable property. It was because of the stated matter that the two cases were consolidated with a view to having them heard together. The consolidation was at the instance of the applicant with the consent of the respondents. More
The parties squabble over copyright. The plaintiff pursued only the claims against the first defendant, the Harare Institute of Technology, [HIT], a tertiary institution established in terms of Zimbabwean law and the second defendant, a chemical engineering lecturer at HIT, (the defendants). The plaintiff a graduate and former student of HIT obtained a chemical and process systems engineering degree in 2015 form HIT. In fulfilment of the degree, she submitted a project titled, “Design of a Plant Producing 24TPD Fuel Briquettes from Cornstover”, and [the project]. The second and third defendant also a lecturer, supervised her project. More
The Applicant was employed by the 2nd Respondent. Following allegations of misconduct she was suspended in terms of the provisions of the National Code of Conduct SI 15/2006. A hearing was thereafter conducted and she was found guilty and was dismissed. Applicant appealed to the Appeals Officer but was unsuccessful. She then appealed to Labour Relations Officer. Conciliation proceedings were conducted but the matter was not settled and was subsequently referred to arbitration. More
The appellant was convicted, on his own guilty plea of contravening s 89 (1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. He was sentenced to 24 months imprisonment of which 3 years were suspended on condition of future good behaviour. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence he appealed against both. More
On 20 January 2014 at Harare, the Honourable E Maganyani made an arbitration award. In terms thereof he dismissed appellant’s claims of unlawful termination of their employment contracts by respondent. Appellants then appealed to this Court. Respondent opposed the appeal. At the onset of oral argument, appellants abandoned their argument that the Notice of Response was defective. They then focused on their main argument. It was based on the provisions of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations S.I. 15/06 (hereafter called the Code). Section 5 (c) of the code provides that, More
Plaintiff issued summons against the defendants on 4 January 2017 claiming for:
1. An order compelling the 1st defendant to effect transfer of stand number 20290 Pumula South, Bulawayo into plaintiff’s names.
2. The 2nd defendant be compelled to accept change of ownership papers from 1st defendant.
3. In the event 2nd defendant fails or refuses to comply with the order, the Sheriff of Bulawayo be and is hereby empowered to sign all necessary paper work on behalf of 1st defendant and 2nd defendant is ordered to accept papers signed by the Sheriff and transfer the property into plaintiff’s names.... More
The applicants seek an order compelling the first respondent to transfer to them within three months of the order, ownership of a certain piece of land situate in Harare called Stand 3225 Bluffhill Township. The claim is based on an alleged agreement of sale between the applicants and the first respondent dated 23 June 2016. The applicants allege the first respondent has evinced an intention to cancel that agreement, or to breach it. More
In case No. HC 3719/20 the first respondent obtained a default judgment per CHAREWA J against the applicant on 7 October 2020 in a claim for the ejectment of the first respondent and all those claiming through her from premises called G3 Mimosa Flats, South Road, Norton. The default judgment was applied for and granted on the basis that the applicant having been personally served with summons on 3 August, 2020 failed to enter appearance to defend. In consequence of such failure to enter appearance to defend, the applicant was barred from filing the appearance to defend or any other... More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Labour Court dated 6 November 2019 under LC/H/521-16 dismissing the appellant’s appeal against arbitral awards by an arbitrator. More
Applicant has approached this Court in terms of section 93 (7) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. The facts of this matter are somewhat enmeshed. The Court will seek to summarise them hereunder. More
The applicant was in the informal business of vending. On 17 April 2017, while selling her wares from a pavement on Chinhoyi Street close to Robert Mugabe Avenue in Harare, she was involved in a tragic accident. In her company was her son who was aged one year and two months. More
The law relating to requests for referral of a constitutional issue in terms of s 175 (4) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe is now well settled. The section makes it mandatory that a person presiding in any court subordinate to the Constitutional Court refers the question to the apex court when requested to do so by a party unless he/she finds that the request is frivolous or vexatious. It is a matter not in the discretion of the judge or magistrate whether or not to refer. The provision is mandatory. It is only a finding on the frivolity or vexatiousness... More
This application seeks the Urgent intervention of this Honourable Court to stop the clear violation of the law with impunity, and the continued violation of property rights, being perpetrated against the applicant by the first and second respondents and those claiming through them. More
On 18 October 2012, I pronounced my decision in this case. I indicated my reasons would follow. Here they are:
The plaintiff originally issued summons in this court on 24 October 2005 against the defendant seeking an order to compel the defendant to return her property which had been deposited with the defendant for safe keeping when the plaintiff left this country for the United Kingdom. More
