On the date of the hearing the Applicant made an application for withdrawal with costs on an ordinary scale. The Respondent having objected the court handed down an extempore ruling. Thereafter an order as follows was granted.
“IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. The application filed under LC/H/REV/42/20 be and is hereby withdrawn.
2. The Applicant shall pay costs on a higher scale.“ More
The basis for the application is that the applicant failed to apply for leave on time because he got to know of the appeal judgment later than the hand down date of the same. He also argues that he has a bona fide case on the merits of his leave application because he is satisfied that the essential elements of the theft which saw him lose his job were not canvassed properly. He therefore believes that the Supreme Court can find that no theft took place but that only a misunderstanding between him and the guards ensued when he was... More
Appellant was employed by the Respondent as a Human Resources Officer. He was charged with “Falsification of records or any document whether of a personal nature or otherwise.” The Hearing Officer found him guilty and recommended his dismissal. He appealed to the Grievance and Disciplinary Committee which was deadlocked as to what penalty to impose on the Appellant. The matter was referred to NEC Appeals Board which recommended his dismissal. Appellant is not satisfied with the decision of the NEC Appeals Board and has approached this Court. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Managing Director of the Respondent to uphold the decision of the disciplinary committee.
Appellant was employed by the Respondent as a driver. On 9 December 2013 Appellant is alleged to have sent two security guards to go and look for a buyer of fuel. It is alleged the two went and came back with Mr.TendaiGutsa in his vehicle. It is also alleged that they drove into the depot and were noticed by private investigators. The private investigators closed the gate. Mr.Gutsa tried to drive out but was blocked. The private investigators... More
On 24 July, 2012, the Appellant’s Legal Practitioner applied for a postponement saying he had just been engaged and he needed time to take instructions and file relevant papers. The Respondent’s representative opposed the application and said this was a delaying tactic by the Appellant who has always been aware of the case and should have sought counsel earlier. He said the Respondent was being prejudiced by the delay. After hearing arguments, the Court granted the postponement but ruled that this would be the last postponement at the instance of the Appellant. More
This was an urgent chamber application. Upon reading it my instinctive reaction was to frown upon the notion that all other business in the busy schedule of the judiciary could be suspended over a mere school leavers’ dance or party.At first impression it seemed such aninconsequential pre-occupation which should not warrant the attention of the machinery of State. However, for a school and its student body the dance must be a serious matter. Suchan event may be an integral part of its life and for its students as well. For sixth formers in particular an event like that, I believe,... More
This is an application made in terms of section 92(C)(1)(C) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01].
The applicant seeks to have this court rescind an order it made on 10 May 2016 striking the matter off the Roll. About 3 months after the matter had been struck off the roll the applicant wrote to the Registrar expressing surprise that the matter had been struck off the Roll when they had requested that the matter be set down some 14 months earlier. More
1. This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the court a quo) handed down on 04 September 2023. The court a quo dismissed an application by the appellant for the review of the decision by the respondent’s Commissioner General of 8 March 2023 declaring a consignment belonging to the appellant forfeited to the State. More
The applicant, a legal entity which is registered in terms of the laws of Zambia applied to review the decision of the respondent, a corporate body which is established in accordance with the Revenue Authority Act of Zimbabwe. Its grounds of review are three. They are that:
i)the respondent’s forfeiture of its techno mobile phones is grossly irregular on account of the allegation that the respondent failed to take into account the fact that the applicant was not involved in the violation of the Customs and Excise Act [Chapter 23:02] (“the Act”)
ii)the respondent’s forfeiture of the applicant’s mobile phones... More
On 9th November 2015 at Harare, Arbitrator L. Sigauke issued an arbitration award. He dismissed Appellant’s claim of constructive dismissal from employment by Respondent. Appellant then appealed to this Court. Respondent opposed the appeal. More
These are largely common cause as shown by the following sequence of events. On 29 August 2016, applicant caused summons to be issued out of this court against the respondents under case number HC 2163/16 claiming defamation damages in the sum of US$100 000-00. The respondents defended the claim and the matter progressed all the way to trial before MABHIKWA J who on 19th May 2019 upheld the applicant’s claim for damages against the 1st and 3rd respondents and awarded applicant the sum of US$16 000-00 as damages. More
Plaintiff issued summons for defamation against the three defendants. He complained that on the back page of the Southern Eye issue of 21 January 2015, the 1st defendant published a story under the headline.
“Outcry over Maphepha disqualification clumsy.”
Plaintiff complained further that the story dealt with the administrative difficulties faced by Highlanders as a club and an anonymous source therein was purportedly quoted stating that plaintiff was suspended for misappropriating funds from the Highlanders football club during his tenure as club chairman. More
On 23rd September 2010 the Honourable C. Kabasa made an arbitration award. In terms thereof he dismissed Appellant’s claims (save for a gratuity) against Respondent. Appellant then appealed to this Court against the award.
Appellant’s case was captured in the award under the sub-title “submissions.” It was a claim for reinstatement with effect from 31 October 2008. In addition he sought back-pay and benefits. Respondent countered that Appellant left his employ for a better paying job in Sudan. Upon his return, Appellant sought employment from them but none was available. The arbitrator’s analysis appears under the sub-title “Observation”. The gist... More
DUBE-BANDA J:This is an urgent application. This application was lodged in this court on 21st September 2021. It was placed before me on the 22nd September 2021 and I directed that it be served on the respondent together with a notice of set down for the 28th September 2021. The application is opposed by the respondent. Applicant seeks an order couched in the following terms: More
