This is an appeal against an arbitral award handed down on 27 May 2013 the operative part of which reads as follows;
“That it be, and is hereby, ordered that the dispute be remitted back to the designated agent of the Employment Council for the Undertaking of Harare Municipality who is seized with matter for disposal.” More
The Appellants in this case engaged in a collective job action.
The employer brought disciplinary proceedings against the Appellants and found them guilty and dismissed then. They appealed against the decision to dismiss them but were unsuccessful before the Designated Agent of the National Employment Council for the Motor Industry. More
This is an application for confirmation of a draft ruling by a Labour officer, the applicant.
The 2nd respondent, hereinafter referred to as the employee was employed by the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority, the 1st respondent (ZIMRA).
The background facts
These are common cause. I will just include them here for completeness. More
CORRIGENDUM
After the release of the order in this case Order No LC/H/ORD/376/19 it has been noted that paragraph 3 of that order erroneously refers to $12904 instead of $1204. The order is accordingly corrected to read $1204 in paragraph 3 instead of $12904. More
After the release of the order in this case Order No LC/H/ORD/376/19 it has been noted that paragraph 3 of that order erroneously refers to $12904 instead of $1204. The order is accordingly corrected to read $1204 in paragraph 3 instead of $12904. More
Sometime in February 2012, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a written agreement of sale in terms of which the defendant sold to the plaintiff an undivided share representing shop number F12, which was to be constructed on a property known as Subdivision B and C of Subdivision C of Lot 15 Block C of Avondale, Harare. The negotiations involved an offer of a smaller shop valued at US$35 000 and shares with a value of US$35 000. Both proposals were apparently rejected by the purchaser.
According to the plaintiff, the defendant breached the agreement in that it failed... More
This is a court application by 163 applicants seeking a declaratory order in the following terms:
“IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
1. It is declared that the agreements of sale which were entered into between the applicants and the 1st respondent represented by the 2nd respondent be and are hereby held to be valid.
2. The 1st respondent pays costs of this application on a legal practitioner and client scale.” More
This is an application brought on an urgent basis for what can be loosely termed as an “anti-dissipation” interdict. The applicant seeks to have her estranged husband (the first respondent) barred from disposing of any of the assets acquired by the two of them during the currency of their union pending the outcome of an action which she has since mounted for an equitable sharing of those assets. This latter claim was brought under case number HCMSF 80/24. More
The 3 applicantsthrough an urgent chamber application seek interim relief for all mining operations at Golden Hill Mine Mashavato be suspended barred or prohibited. Further that in pursuance of the above that applicants are authorised to hire and deploy at the said mine security guards to ensure compliance with the order suspending barring or suspending mining operations at the said mine. More
On 31 May 2022, after hearing oral submissions by counsels, I dismissed the applicant’s application with costs on a higher scale in an extempore judgment. The applicant has asked for written reasons following the noting of an appeal. The following are the reasons. More
This court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of NEC for Engineering Industry. The applicant is dissatisfied with the decision and seeks to approach the Supreme Court. This is therefore an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in terms of section 92 F of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01].
The facts in this matter are largely common cause. The respondent and applicant were embroiled in a labour dispute which culminated in it being referred to conciliation. The result was that the parties agreed to resolve this dispute and the respondent was reinstated. The respondent was made... More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award which awarded payment of gratuity, cash in lieu of leave and underpayment of salaries in favour of respondent. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award in terms of which the appellant was ordered to pay a total of $57 391-59 to the respondents to meet underpayment of wages covering the period February 2009 to June 2012. The award was granted on 18 December 2012.
The factual background to the dispute is that the respondents were employed by the appellant; in various capacities, for a period stretching from November 1987 to the time of the arbitral award. However, seven of the respondents were employed by the appellant up to June 2012, the time of their dismissal, while the... More
