This is an appeal against an arbitral award that was handed down by Honourable P. Mutsinze on 11th September 2012. In terms of the award the Respondent’s suspension from employment was ruled to be unlawful, Appellant was ordered to reinstate the Respondent and institute fresh disciplinary proceedings. More
This is an application for condonation for late filing of a Notice of Response.
The Applicant was served with a Notice of Appeal on 21st May 2013. In the Notice of Appeal, the Respondent is challenging the decision of the Applicant company’s Appeals Officer, who confirmed Respondent’s dismissal from Applicant’s employment for misconduct. More
This is an application by the Applicant Company for interim relief in terms of Rule 34 of the Labour Court Rules. It is seeking the stay of the arbitral award which was made in favour of the Respondent employee and which it has now appealed against in the Labour Court. More
The brief background of this matter is that Respondent was employed by Appellant as a Kitchen Poter in October 2006. He rose through the ranks to become a Commis Cook at the time of his dismissal. In November 2008 the Respondent received a letter of suspension alleging that he had breached;
“Theft- Gross
Unlawful and intentionally appropriating property belonging to the company or in possession of the employer, other employee’s or guests with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.” More
It is not the function of the courts to make a contract for the parties or to rewrite a contract entered into between the parties. Neither is it open to the courts to excuse any party to a contract from the imperatives of the contract they have freely and voluntarily accepted on the basis that it has become too onerous or oppressive. In addition, it is not allowed to read into the contract some implied or tacit term that is in direct conflict with its express terms. See Magodora & Ors v Care International Zimbabwe 2014 (1) ZLR 397 (S)... More
When this matter came up for hearing, the respondent’s legal practitioner argued that the record was not a true reflection of what had transpired during the hearing. More
Sometime in or around November 2015 and at Harare the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement in terms of which the defendant agreed to repair and fit 3 500 seat holding brackets at the plaintiff’s Rainbow Towers Hotel and Conference Centre. The total cost of repairing and fitting the 3 500 seat brackets was quoted by the defendant at US$50 015.00. More
The appellant appeals against the whole judgment of the Labour Court sitting at Harare, being judgement LC/H/74/17 handed down on 10 February 2017. More
This matter has its dispute steeped in oral African Customary principles of succession concerned with the nomination and appointment of the fourth defendant as headman Mubaiwa which the plaintiff is challenging, arguing that he is the rightful candidate to be declared headman of the Mubaiwa people. More
The facts of this matter are that on 27th June 2012 the Appellant phoned the Acting Sergeant Major and advised that he was not feeling well.
On 28th June 2010 he phoned again the same officer and said he had to travel to Bulawayo on an emergency as his uncle was unwell. Appellant advised his superior that he would be sending a letter.
When the Acting Sergeant Major discussed with the superior Nyamwisa he confirmed that he too had received a similar phone call from the Appellant and that they were waiting for the letter he had said he would... More
On the 31st May, 2013 this court issued a judgment whose order gave rise to this application for quantification of damages.
The order reads:-
“In the result, the appeal must succeed.
The Appellant is to be reinstated into his former position.
If reinstatement is no longer tenable the Appellant is to be paid damages for premature loss of his job.”
It is clear from this order that retrospectivity was not intended. More
This is a contested application for leave to execute pending Appeal. In brief, there has been an ongoing legal battle between the applicant and first respondent over an immovable property, stand 295, Northwood Township 2 of Submenu, measuring 4049 square meters. The second and third respondents are only cited in their official capacities.
Applicant claims that he fully purchased the property from the respondents, sometime in 2013, but is being precluded from having undisturbed enjoyment of the same by the first respondent. First Respondent, on the other hand, is challenging the sale as fraudulent and unsanctioned, as he has always... More
The delay in handing down this judgment is much regretted especially in view of the order that I make.
This is an appeal and cross -appeal against a judgment of the High Court handed down on 25 April 2018. In the judgment, the court a quo found for the first and second respondents and declared the first respondent the owner of certain immovable property in Mt Pleasant, Harare up to 22 November 2017 and the second respondent the owner of certain property in Avondale, Harare. More
