The background of this matter is that the applicant is a former employee of the first respondent .The two parted ways. When they so parted ways there were some sums of money due to the applicant from the first respondent. This is not disputed. The first respondent did not fulfil its obligations to pay the applicant. This led the applicant to approach a labour officer ,2nd respondent, in terms of s93(5a)and (5b) of the Labour Act,[Chapter 28:01] (the Act).The 1st respondent did not deny its liability, as a result a ‘ Certificate of Settlement’ was signed before the second respondent.... More
MAKONESE J: Section 274 of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act (Chapter 9:23) provides that where a person is charged with a crime the essential elements of which include the essential elements of some other crime, he or she may be found guilty of such other crime, if such are the facts proved and if it is not proved that he or she committed the crime charged. The effect of this provision in our law, is that where the evidence led and proven facts are found that another cognizable offence at law, other than that in the charge sheet... More
This is an appeal against the determination of the respondent’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) dated 22 November 2019, in terms of which the appellant was dismissed from employment.
The brief facts of the matter are that the appellant was employed by the respondent as a driver. He was charged with misconduct in terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement: National Employment Council for the Transport Operating Industry, Statutory Instrument 26 of 2017. More
The applicant seeks condonation for filing his application for rescission of judgment out of time. The application has its roots in case No. HC 57/17 wherein respondent (then plaintiff) sought an order for the sharing of property acquired by the parties during the subsistence of their unregistered customary law union. More
: what defendant and the plaintiff (“the parties”) placed before me is what I may refer to as an exception –within-an exception. Its genesis is that, the plaintiff sued the defendant under the law of delict. He claimed certain sums of money from the plaintiff, his former employer, in the form of the damages. He grounded his suit under the Acquilian action,
The plaintiff served his summons and declaration upon the defendant on 17 November 2020. The defendant entered appearance to defend on 26 November, 2020 after which it, on 11 December 2020, wrote a letter of complaint to the... More
This is an appeal against sentence. The appellant was convicted by a Harare court on a charge of fraud in contravention of section 136 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act Chapter 9.23. The allegations were that sometime in February 2011 the complainant told the appellant that he had just obtained a provisional driver’s licence and that he intended to obtain a driver’s licence. The appellant then told the complainant that he could process him a driver’s licence upon paying him $300.00 which was to be forwarded to a VID person. By June 2012 nothing had been processed. The... More
TAKUVA J: This is an application for a declarateur against the respondent. Applicant seeks an order declaring that the respondent’s deduction of her health allowanceextended to her by the Ministry of Health and Child Care is illegal and unlawful. Further applicant seeks an ancillary order for the payment of all monies that have been deducted by the respondent to date. More
This is an opposed application wherein, applicants seek rescission of a default judgment of this court under case HC199/22, delivered on the 24th of November of the same year. It has been brought in terms of rule 29 (1) (a) of the High Court rules, 2021. The justification being that, applicants were interested parties with direct and substantial interest but were not made part to the lawsuit with adverse consequences. More
The Applicant (Respondent in main matter) submitted before mean application in terms of Rule 22(a) of the Labour Court rules, Statutory Instrument 59 of 2006. More
Respondent who had been employed by Appellant was dismissed from employment and successfully challenged his dismissal before an arbitrator. The arbitrator ordered his reinstatement without loss of salary and benefits with effect from the date of dismissal. Respondent alleges that he reported for duty but was denied entrance into Appellant’s premises and was told not to report for duty. He then approached the arbitrator for quantification of damages. More
The applicant and the respondent are embroiled in divorce proceedings in which the respondent is the plaintiff, and the applicant is the defendant. On the 10 January 2023, the applicant delivered a notice of intention to amend its plea which was objected to by the respondent on the 19th of January 2023. The amendments sought to be effected are set out as follows:
“A. By the addition of paragraph 6.3.1 to the defendant’s plea, which will read as follows:
6.3.1. As a result of the aforesaid, it would be just and equitable that she be awarded total ownership of the... More
This is an application for review brought in terms of section 27 of the High Court Act [Chapter 9;07] wherein the applicant seeks an order setting aside the decision of the Magistrates Court sitting at Chiredzi. The applicant avers that the decision should not be allowed to stand as it is gross unreasonable. In the impugned decision, the Magistrate, who was cited in this application as the 1st respondent, dismissed two related applications both of which were launched in that court by the applicant. More
The applicant and the respondent are duly incorporated companies, the applicant according to the laws of Lebanon, and the respondent according to the laws of Zimbabwe. The applicant avers that the respondent is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Mineral Marketing Corporation of Zimbabwe (MMCZ) a body corporate created by a statute of the same name, [Chapter 21:04]. The respondent averred on the contrary that it is wholly owned by the Ministry of Mines and not MMCZ. Nothing turns on the ownership of the respondent because of the nature of the relief sought. Suffice that there is no dispute regarding... More
This is one case where both parties did not seriously consider presenting their evidence in a clear and logical manner. The duty for coherence in the presentation of pleadings and evidence before the court lies with the parties. The court has no duty to fill pot holes in the evidence of parties. More
