On 24 April 2013 I dismissed Applicants’ application. Applicants requests reasons for such dismissal. These are they;
Applicants made an application to this court in terms of section 89(2) (b),(c) (d) of the Labour Act as read with Rule 14(1) (b) this court’s rules. Applicants alleged that a Labour Officer failed for some reason to issue a Certificate of No Settlement, in relation to the dispute in terms of Section 93(3) of the Act after the expiry of 30 days. The initial day of conciliation was 21 November 2012. 30 days there from was 9 January 2013. On 14 December... More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court of Zimbabwe (“the court a quo”) in which a preliminary point that the appellant failed to give the requisite notice in terms s 6 of the State Liabilities Act [Chapter 8:14] as read with s 196 (1) of the Customs and Excise Act [Chapter 23:02] before instituting proceedings against the first respondent was upheld. In the event of success, the appellant prayed for an order that the instant appeal succeeds and that the matter be remitted to the court a quo for it to be heard afresh before... More
The background to this case is as follows: The five respondents were employed by the applicant in August 2015 the applicant terminated the respondents’’ employment on three months’ notice.
The effective date of termination was to be 31 October 2015.
On 15 October 2015 applicant applied for exemption from paying compensation in terms of section 12 C (3) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] to the exemption committee of the National Employment Council for the Motor Industry (the exemption committee)
On 23 November 2015 a hearing was conducted before the exemption committee. Subsequently on 3 December 2015 the exemption committee... More
The applicant in the case seemed to have employed Winston Churchill’s philosophy that when you have an important point to make, you do not try to be subtle. Instead, you must use a pile driver to hit the point home. You then return to hit it again with a tremendous whack. The applicant took no prisoners in challenging the respondents’ decision on the grounds of gross unreasonableness, irrationality and absence of reasons. In the midst of it, the interpretation of what in the automotive industry is meant by the term semi knocked down kits, is where the dispute between the... More
This is application for a declaratory order declaring the ruling by the Arbitrator null and void for want of compliance with s 89(2)(c) iii) of the Labour Act [Cap 28:01], which requires that an award for reinstatement must have as an alternative specific amount of damages to be awarded to the employee concerned. More
The appeal was noted against an arbitral award handed down on the 9th of November, 2011. The Respondent also noted a cross-appeal against part of the award. For the purpose of this judgment the Appellant is the employee and the Respondent the employer. More
The following facts are common cause. The plaintiff is the owner of business premises situated at defendant No 18 Shepperton Road, Graniteside, Harare. On 16 December, 2002, the company entered into a lease agreement with the defendant whereby the defendant leased from the plaintiff a portion of the business premises. The lease agreement was renewable annually. In 2005, the parties agreed to renew the agreement every four months and would agree on the monthly rental for the four months. In December 2005 the rental was $40 million. It was a term of the agreement that rent was payable on or... More
The appellant and the first respondent are companies incorporated in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. The first respondent is the owner of a certain piece of land, being two thirds shares of the Remaining extent of Teviotdale (hereinafter referred to as ‘part of the farm’) held under Deed of Transfer 8935/90. The appellant is the registered holder of a mining block consisting of ten gold reef claims named Forest K of Forest View (hereinafter referred to as ‘Forest K claims’) which block is situated on the respondent’s farm. More
This is an application for the confirmation of a provisional order granted on an urgent basis on 27 July 2020 wherein the respondent and anyone in its employ was interdicted from extracting mineral resources at applicant’s mining claim registered as 40826BM. The final order sought herein is that respondent and anyone in its employ should allow applicant access to its mining site, hand over the same to applicant and not interfere with applicant’s claim and activities on the said claim. More
The record of this matter was placed before me in Chambers to be dealt with in accordance with Section 89 (2) (a (i) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. More
The appellant hereinan estate agency negotiated a sale of an immovable property between the Estate Late Hayisa the seller, and the respondent. The respondent failed to raise the purchase price which he purported was coming from abroad. He duly notified the appellants as agents of the seller of his predicament advising them to sellthe property to another purchaser. More
The plaintiff seeks provisional sentence in the sum of US$36 457-11 together with interest at the rate of 5% per annum from 19 October 2011 to date of payment, a sum contained in various quotations attached to the provisional sentence summons. He also relies on the judgment of this court, being HH 79-06, per BHUNU J, ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of $4 744 515 138-00 (four billion seven hundred and forty four million five hundred and fifteen thousand one hundred and thirty eight Zimbabwe dollars), plus interest at the prescribed rate and costs of suit. More
The plaintiffs’ case is that they own certain housing units situate in RAN mine compound. The 18 defendants were among other employees who were employed by RAN mine. They were given accommodation as part of their employment benefits. In 1999 the mine workers, including the defendants, were retrenched from work and paid their retrenchment package which included a relocation allowance of $5000. The plaintiffs said the retrenchment was approved by the Ministry of Labour in line with labour laws and that the retrenchment package was one agreed to by the Works Council and Management. Despite demand, it is alleged the... More
This an application for the registration of an arbitral award as an order of this court for purposes of enforcement.
The application is made in terms of s 98(14) of the Labour Act [Cap 28:01] (“the Act”) which provides as follows:
“(14) Any party to whom an arbitral award relates may submit for registration the copy of it furnished to him in terms of subs (13) to the court of any magistrate which would have had jurisdiction to make an order corresponding to the award had the matter been determined by it, or, if the arbitral award exceeds the jurisdiction... More
This is an application for a spoliation order whereby the applicants pray for restoration of status-a-quo ante prevailing at Plot No. 1 Robbsdale Farm Mhangura as at 17 June 2017. On the return date the applicants would pray for a final order in the nature of an interdict where the applicants are barred from unlawfully interfering with the applicants farming activities at and occupation of Plot No. 1 Robbsale Farm. More
