The appellants were charged, tried and convicted in the magistrates court of one count each of Criminal Abuse of Duty as defined in s 174(1) (a) of the Criminal law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. More
The Applicants were charged with Theft, Dishonesty and Fraud in terms of the Company’s Code of Conduct, for missing stock of 4 000 x 92 bale ties. Before the Disciplinary hearing was conducted, the Applicants were arrested by the police for the same offence and a criminal charge was raised against them. They were granted bail and released on bail on 6 August 2010. While they were on bail, they were called to a Disciplinary hearing on 14 December, 2010. More
1. This is an appeal against the decision of a labour officer who dismissed the
Appellant’s claim that his contract of employment had been unlawfully
terminated by the school. The appeal was heard on the 8th of November 2023. At the end of the hearing the appeal was dismissed with the court giving an ex
temporae judgment. The Appellant subsequently on the 1st of December 2023 asked for reasons for the decision. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Appeals Committee which found Appellant guilty of negligent loss of company property and negligence. The Appeals Committee upheld the decision of the disciplinary hearing dismissing Appellant from employment.
The brief facts are that Appellant was employed by the Respondent. One of his duties was keeping the keys to the safe and safeguarding the monies deposited therein. On 19 February 2011 Appellant locked the safe and hid the keys in a dust bin. There was an amount of $17 808-00 in the safe. On 21 February 2011 Appellant opened the safe and... More
This is an application for rescission of judgment brought in terms of Rule 449 or alternatively Rule 63 of the High Court Rules, 1971.
Rule 449 provides that:-
(1) “The court or a Judge may in addition to any other power it or he may have, mero motu or upon the application of any party affected, correct, rescind, or vary any judgment or order –
(a) that was erroneously sought or erroneously granted in the absence of any party affected thereby; or
(b) ………………”
The applicant seeks rescission of the judgment granted in case number HC 523/2019 on the basis... More
The plaintiff’s prayer in the declaration reads:
“Wherefore the plaintiff claims against the defendant for an order in the following terms:
a) The defendant return forthwith into the plaintiff’s custody and possession two motor vehicles viz a Mercedez (sic) Benz registration number AAB 6070 and a Nissan Hardbody King Cab registration number ABG 7946 in the same condition the vehicles were in when the defendant dispossessed the plaintiff or IN THE ALTERNATIVE, should both vehicles or one of them be missing for whatever reason the defendant to pay the current market value of both vehicles or such missing vehicle.
b)... More
This is an application for rescission of judgment which in effect seeks to set aside the registration of a deed of settlement as an order of court using the mechanism of rescission. At a pre-trial conference the applicant as defendant entered into a deed of settlement with the respondent as plaintiff regarding the transfer and purchase of shares from Old Mutual Limited in lieu of applicant’s failure to transfer property purchased by the respondent. The deed of settlement was entered into on the 1st of July 2008. The shares were to have been purchased and transferred within fourteen days from... More
Following the decisionI made in HC 11586/15 (HH 456/17),the Supreme Court ordered that the matter be referred back to this court for the principles relating to rescission of judgment in terms of Order 9r63 to be considered.The background facts are briefly reiterated for context to the applicable principles. More
At the hearing of this matter, the issue if whether or not the respondent was barred was raised and MrNhokwara for the respondent submitted that the respondent was not barred as its heads were filed five days before the set down date. More
In this matter an order dismissing the appeal was made. The following are the reasons.
The appellant was dismissed in terms of Statutory Instrument 15/06 for an act/omission inconsistent with express/implied conditions of employment. The dismissal followed allegations that he failed to adequately supervise his subordinates. He also failed to ensure sufficient production of supplies to some of the respondent’s clients for a particular festive season. Such failure led to financial prejudice to the respondent. More
On 12 June 2012 Arbitrator D. Mudzengi gave the following award in favour of the applicants.
“My award is as follows:
1. It is ordered that respondent pays $77 373.41 salary arrears to the 25 employees within 21 days of this award. The names of the employees and the amounts owed are as per the attached schedule.
2. Claimants’ claim of unfair dismissal is hereby dismissed.” More
This matter came as an exparte urgent chamber application for stay of execution of the default judgment granted under HC 10745/11 pending the determination of an application for rescission of judgement in that case. I directed that the other party be served with the application and that the application be set down for argument. Thereafter, I dismissed the application and gave an ex tempo judgement. I have now been requested for detailed reasons. More
This matter came before me as a special case in terms of Order 29 of the High Court of Zimbabwe Rules, 1971. At the pre-trial conference of the parties held before a Judge the parties identified the issue for determination as:-
“Whether the first defendant (the insurer) is contractually/statutorily obligated to pay the plaintiff the damages claimed and if not, the extent of the first defendant’s statutory liability”. More
MAKONI J: The applicant approached this court seeking the setting aside of an arbitral award granted by the first respondent and thereafter substitute the award with its own order on the terms suggested by the applicant in the draft order. More
At the onset of oral argument in this Court, the respondents raised a point in limine which appellant opposed. The point was that the appeal to this Court was filed out of time and hence the matter ought to be struck off the roll. A brief background of the matter is apposite.
1. Appellant worked for Respondent as a security guard at S. Mugabe Hospital in Harare.
2. On the 27th September 2021 he was charged with misconduct.
3. A disciplinary hearing was held on the 1st October 2021.
4. By letter dated 4th October 2021 appellant was found guilty... More
