On 10th January 2025 at Mutare, Arbitrator C. Mutiba issued an award which ordered appellant to pay respondents a total amount of US$10,088.08 being arrear salaries. Appellant then appealed the award to this Court in terms of Section 98(10) of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 (hereafter called the Act). Respondents opposed the appeal. More
This is a court application seeking to set aside an arbitral award issued by the second respondent on 25 February 2021 for the reason that it is contrary to public policy. More
The applicant, a legal entity which is registered in Zimbabwe, contracted the first respondent, a tobacco grower, to grow tobacco crop on its behalf for the 2018-2019 tobacco season. The second and third respondents bound themselves as sureties and co-principal debtors with the first respondent. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the respondent officer reprimanding appellant employer for 6 months with effect from 15 February 2021. This was at the backdrop of her having been charged and tried on allegations of incompetent or inefficient conduct of her duties in contravention of section (4)(f) of the Model Code. More
This matter was set down as an application for condonation for late filing of an appeal. In response to the application the respondent employer raised with the court points in limine which points are the subject matter of this judgment.
The employer took 3 points that is (1) application was not served on time (2) Answering affidavit was improperly before the court (3) Applicant was bared for failure to file heads of argument. In the result the employer prayed that the application for condonation be struck off the roll with costs on the basis of the points raised above. More
On the set down date of the appeal by the appellant against the respondents appeals bodys decision in a labor dispute between appellant and her employer the employer took the point that the appeal was bad at law as it attacked the hearing officer’s decision and not the appeals officer’s decision. It is only this point which is addressed by this ruling. More
The 3 appellants were convicted of 2 counts of stocktheft as defined in section 114 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act Chapter 9:23. They were sentenced to 9 years imprisonment on each count leaving them with an effective sentence of 18 years imprisonment. More
The background of this case is that, the plaintiff got divorced from a previous marriage on 14 June, 2012. As part of the divorce settlement, she was awarded Stand 430, Westwood. On 8 December, 2012, she married the defendant. On 13 March, 2013, the couple had a child; Tanyaradzwa Mufambi. More
The applicant is on trial before the Regional Court for the Eastern Division sitting at Harare on two counts of bribery as defined in s 170 of the Criminal Law (Codification & Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. More
The applicant is on trial before the Regional Court of the Eastern Division of two charges of bribery as defined in s 170 of the Criminal Law (Codification & Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. The allegations being that on or around 26 June 2014 she corruptly offered JUSTICE FELICIA CHATUKUTA, a High Court Judge some money as a reward for rendering judgment favourable a certain company known as Avondale Holdings (Pvt) Ltd in case No. HC 4018/14. More
This is an appeal against the sentence imposed on the appellant by the Magistrates Court sitting at Harare following a full trial on a charge of bribery as defined in s 170 (1) (a) (i) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. More
1. This is an application for bail pending appeal against sentence only.
2. The Magistrates Court sitting at Harare, following a protracted trial, convicted the applicant on a charge of bribery as defined in s 170(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23].
3. The judgment was delivered on 18 November 2022. Sentence was passed on the same date. The sentence imposed was 2 years imprisonment of which 9 months were suspended for 5 years on the usual conditions of good behaviour. The total effective sentence was 15 months imprisonment.
4. The principles applicable in an application... More
The appellant wasconvicted in the Magistrates Court sitting at Beitbridge of the offence of theft oftrust property as defined in section 113 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, [ Chapter 9:23] ("the Criminal code"). The nub of the charge was that the appellant received the sum of eight thousand United States dollars (US $8 000) from the complainant for the sole purpose of purchasing a motor vehicle (described in the charge as a Mercedes Benz Atego 815 truck) (‘the motor vehicle”) from the United Kingdom on behalf of the complainantwhich sum of money he (i.e. appellant) unlawfully converted... More
