The applicant, a company incorporated according to the laws of Zimbabwe, contracted the second respondent to execute debt collection services from various debtors on its behalf. The second respondent is also a company which was registered in terms of the country’s laws. The first respondent is a director of the second respondent. More
The respondent was an employee of the applicant. On 30 January, 2009 the parties concluded a mutual agreement to terminate the respondent’s contract of employment. More
In this matter the plaintiff a company duly incorporated and registered in terms of the laws of the Republic of South Africa sued the first, second and third defendants jointly and severally the one paying the others tobe absolved for (a) payment of the sum of ZAR 716 250.00 (b) interest at the prescribed rate from 1 April 2013 to the date of full and final payment and (c) costs of suit on a higher scale. More
At the commencement of this matter Mr Mpofu moved for the condonation of the late filing of the respondent’s heads of argument. Mr Chidziva was gracious enough to consent to the application which I then granted More
The facts in this case are largely common cause and can be summarised as follows:-
Having been furnished with a quotation dated 31 May 2006 for the manufacture and supply of tanks from the defendant, the plaintiff formerly placed an order with the defendant for the supply of same. The plaintiff initially paid a 60% deposit which was followed by the payment of the remaining balance to complete the full purchase price. More
Mr V. Mapepa for the Respondents applied that the matter be stood down to 1100 hours to enable the Legal Practitioner representing Respondents to avail herself at Court. Mr Mapepa submitted that such Legal Practitioner was attending a Pre – Trial conference at the High Court. No evidence was tendered in support of such submissions. Let me warn all legal practitioners to start respecting this court as a superior court. Most lawyers believe they can simply get a file from a fellow colleague and come before this court to inform this court to either postpone or stand down a matter. More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Labour Court (the Court a quo) which allowed the respondent access to the appellant’s employees purportedly in terms of s 46 (a) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] (the Act). At the close of submissions by both counsel the court issued an order with reasons to follow. More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Labour Court (the Court a quo) which allowed the respondent access to the appellant’s employees purportedly in terms of s 46 (a) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] (the Act). At the close of submissions by both counsel the court issued an order with reasons to follow. The order is couched in the following terms:
“In the result it is ordered as follows:
1. The appeal be and is hereby allowed with costs.
2. The judgment of the court a quo being LC/MT/25/22 be and is hereby set aside and substituted... More
This is contractual a claim for a debt and interest arising therefrom.
The plaintiff sold various electrical goods to the defendanton credit. The defendant fell into arrears amounting to $22968-00.On 5 May 2010 the defendant’s erstwhile managing director signed a final demand agreeing to interest being charged on the overdue account at 4% per month. The plaintiff commenced charging interest on the outstanding amount and payments made were appropriated first to interest and then to the capital amount. At the time of trial, the amount claimed was $12162-00.This figure was revised down to $11 751-00 following adjustments to the account. More
This is an appeal against an award that quantified the damages due to the respondents. The appellant had on 6 November 2014 advised the arbitrator that even though respondents were seeking reinstatement on the basis that their dismissal was unlawful or alternatively the payment of damages and terminal benefits, reinstatement was no longer on option. The quantification proceedings were subsequently held and an award was issued on 18 May 2015. On 4 June 2015 the appellant noted this appeal. The grounds of appeal span over three pages and they number up to 13. The bone of contention are the entitlements... More
This is an appeal against the decision of Honourable Arbitrator J Ndomene dated 5 September 2018. The arbitrator’s findings were that,
(i) The claim for non payment had not prescribed.
(ii) The claim for underpayment be granted.
The brief background of the matter is that some of the Respondents were employed by the Appellant as Loss Control Assistants and others as Messengers. When parties appeared before the arbitrator they made the following submissions. More
Appellant employed the respondent. Respondent’s contract of employment was terminated by the giving of three months’ notice. Respondent was aggrieved by this turn of events and the matter ended up in arbitration. The arbitrator ordered respondent’s reinstatement after making a finding that the termination was unlawful. Appellant is contesting the finding of the arbitrator. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award granting rescission of a default judgment, and directing that submissions be filed for the matter to be heard on the merits. What is peculiar about this application is that it is emanating from the party who sought, and was granted, rescission of the default judgment. It is not coming from the party who opposed the application for rescission of judgment. More
The respondent was employed by the applicant as a Finance Manager. By virtue of his employment the respondent was entitled to the following perquisites,
(a) Toyota Prado, registration No. ABH 7465
(b) A laptop and an iPad 2. More
This is an application for a Declaratur in terms of Section 14 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06] to have the certificates of Registration numbers 48749, 48750, and 48751 issued by the 3rd Respondent to the 1st and 2nd Respondents declared invalid and of no legal force or effect. More
