This is an appeal against a decision of NEC Appeals Committee for the Welfare and Education Institution (NEC Appeals Committee) handed down on the28th October, 2014.
The Appellant is a duly registered private learning institution governed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement of the welfare and Education institution. The Respondent was until July 2014 employed by the Appellant as its bookkeeper. The Respondent was on the 1st of July 2014 charged with a violation of Schedule 4 Gross Misconduct offences under the relevant code i.e. NEC Welfare and Educational Institution Code of Conduct. More
This is an appeal against the decision by a designated agent reinstating the respondent (the employee) into his former position with no loss of salary and benefits. The designated agent also ordered the payment of back pay for two different periods and the appellant was not challenging the backpay which relates to the period the respondent was unlawfully dismissed. More
At the hearing of this appeal, the respondent raised preliminary issues which were:
(1) The appeal was only premised on grounds of facts and thus must be dismissed as no grounds of law have been brought before the court for determination.
(2) The grounds of appeal raise procedural issues and these are not properly raised in an appeal. They should be held to be improperly before the court.
(3) The appeal is out of time and is for that reason also improperly before the court and must be dismissed. More
The applicant as farmer and the first respondent as miner lock horns over the exercise of their respective rights on the same piece of land. The applicant occupies a piece of land by virtue of land occupation permit issued to him in 2001 at the height of the land reform programme. The first respondent on the other hand is, on the face of it, the holder of certain mining rights over the same piece of land which it acquired by virtue of a contract to that effect with the fourth respondent. The mining claim was initially registered in the name... More
Applicant seeks the following order from this court;
“(1) That first respondent shall approve the layout plan for applicant within ten (10) days of service of this order, failure of which the Sheriff for Zimbabwe shall sign the layout plan in approval for subdivision E of Arlington Estate, Harare
(2) 1ST respondent shall pay the costs of this application if he opposes same.
(3) 2nd respondent, the administrative authority for the municipal area of Harare, shall be bound by the provisions of this court order. More
On 13 February 2025 this court handed down an order granting the review application with costs on the ordinary scale. It ordered further that the proceedings leading to the applicant’s dismissal be set aside and in their place the matter be determined afresh before a different hearing officer. More
The Appellant employed the Respondent as a Till Controller at its Kwekwe Branch.
She was charged with an act of misconduct it being alleged that she had unsatisfactorily performed her work and lacked the necessary skills for a person employed in her capacity. She was found guilty and dismissed. She successfully challenged her dismissal before both the Local Joint Committee (LJC) and the Negotiating Committee (NC). This appeal is by the employer (Appellant) against the decision of the NC. which reversed its decision to dismiss. More
The court action between the parties was set down for hearing on the continuous court roll for Wednesday the 31st January and Thursday the 1st of February 2011.
It is pertinent to note that a Joint Pre-Trial Conference minute had been filed of record and signed by both parties’ legal representatives.
The matter was referred to trial by HUNGWE J on 28 June, 2017.
As for this court was concerned all the issues for trial had been settled by and between the parties. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award.
Respondents are former employees of the Appellant. It seems that the last contracts signed were fixed term contracts running from 1st January 2012 to 31st March 2012. More
This is an appeal emanating from the Regional Magistrates Court sitting at Masvingo where appellant was convicted of the offence of having sexual intercourse with a young person below the age of sixteen years in contravention of section 70(1) (a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, [Chapter 9:23] (“the criminal code”). More
This matter was instituted as an urgent chamber application for an interdict preventing the respondents from removing “any bags of maize from (the) applicant’s premises” pending determination of the matter. The final order sought is that the applicant be given leave to process the maize in its custody into mealie-meal. After hearing argument from the legal practitioners representing the applicant and the respondents I dismissed the application with costs and indicated that my reasons would follow. The applicant has asked for the written reasons. These are they. More
The applicant in this matter was convicted of the murder of his girlfriend. Because of extenuating circumstances, he was sentenced to life imprisonment. He was aged 19 at the time of his conviction and has been in gaol since 1995 for almost 21 years. The gravamen of his application is that life imprisonment without the possibility of judicial review or parole is unconstitutional. More
Appellant’s grounds of appeal as captured in the notice of appeal are that:-
- the National Employment Council Appeals Committee (NAC) grossly erred and misdirected herself on the facts and the law, such gross misdirection amounting to an error in terms of the law by setting aside the dismissal of the Respondent on alleged grounds of procedural defects when it was clear that the Respondent had a case to answer. More
This is an urgent chamber application. The matter was set down for hearing on21 March 2012 and an ex-tempo judgment given the same date. The respondents have requested for reasons for my decision. More
Appellant’s grounds of appeal were four-fold and read as follows,
“1. The Code of Conduct used by the company to dismiss the Appellant is not registered with the NEC and therefore is inconsistent with the National Code or Labour Relations Act [Chapter 28:01].
2. The Disciplinary Hearing Committee misdirected itself on the facts and law.
3. The same committee’s hearing was motivated by bias.
4. The Disciplinary Hearing Committee conducted its proceedings in an irregular manner.” More
